All reviews received by SciRev

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 11.3
weeks
27.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The paper stayed way more time on the editor desk than in reviews...
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Sustainability 0.1
weeks
0.6
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Social Politics n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Chemical Engineering Journal 4.4
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were of high quality and comments really fitted to the manuscript.
Mechanism and Machine Theory 9.0
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nano Letters n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 5.3
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good journal, three reviewers is a bit much and required a lot of work to address the comments. Process was fairly quick though with good amount of time between submission and acceptance (~3 months).
ACS Catalysis n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
BBA General Subjects 4.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Process speed of the journal was normal compared to others and each process step was displayed in journal submission website. In my case, 3 external reviewers who were the expert of their fields reviewed my manuscript. First decision was major revision with lots of comments. The review points were reasonable, but little bit exausting. As a result, I feel like the review improved my paper. I think the review process time was totally dependent on the reviewer's personal schedule, not on the editiorial process.
ACS Photonics n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Public Opinion Quarterly 12.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer didn't think this was novel enough, and that was enough to sink the paper.
PLoS ONE 6.0
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast handling of manuscript. One review was very thorough, the second a bit short, but overall both helped to improve the manuscript.
Thunderbird International Business Review 17.4
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Optical Materials 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewer suggested to accept the manuscript without further revision. I am harpy with the handling process of this Journal
Analytical Chemistry n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Microbiome Drawn back before first editorial decision after 84 days Drawn back
Motivation: I sent to Microbiome a review about the female genital tract microbiota and its relationship with the mucosal immune system, in which we proposed a new hypothesis about the etiology of endometriosis. We chose this journal trying to publish it quickly, because its web site stated as mean time of the first revision 32 days. The assigned editor retained the manuscript for 12 weeks without sending it to external reviewers. After requesting information twice (August 16th and 27th), no reasonable explanation was provided about this delay. In fact the editor did not answer my request.
Nanotechnology n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 3.7
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The whole submission process, as well as the correspondence, is done through the online submission system; this was definitely a positive aspect of my submission. I was a bit disappointed with the number and quality of the referee reports, I received only one (positive) report that was one page long. I was hoping to get some suggestions on improving the presentation of the technical (mathematical) part of the paper, but the referee focused more on less important simulation section and the impact of the paper.
Political Behavior 6.4
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: It was a very fast and efficient rejection experience. We got four (somewhat mixed) reviews of good quality, so later we improved a lot our manuscript based on the issues the reviewers raised. We appreciated very much the humane rejection letter and the short turnaround time.
Journal of Politics 16.9
weeks
35.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Decision Support Systems n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It wasn't clear how the manuscript failed to follow the Guide for Authors, but self-citations really were excessive - and there were other major issues with the paper that I became aware of later.
Current Psychology 6.7
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Analyst 1.9
weeks
1.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers rejected the manuscript due to low advancement of the state-of-the-art, which suggested that they had reviewed the paper superficially. Nevertheless, their comments were reasonable and helpful for further revisions of our manuscript
Bioinformatics 12.7
weeks
17.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Four months after acceptance, the article is still to be published in the journal. The journal says the time to publication is less than 10 weeks. That is clearly not true.
Nano Letters n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Open Geospatial Data, Software and Standards 7.9
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Swift process with careful reviewers who demonstrated knowledge on the topic and gave quite useful and detailed comments. The only downside in the process is that it took some time to see the paper published online after acceptance (other publishers usually do it in less time), but overall (from submission to publication) the process was efficient.
Information Processing and Management 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Both reviewers provided enough arguments for rejection but one of them added some extra points which were simply false - exposing that he actually never read the paper completely. Strangely enough, he was the one stating that re-submission must be encouraged. It was clear from the feedback that both reviewers were not reading the paper carefully. Some remarks could be interpreted as result of my confusing style, but for some other I couldn't find any other explanation than careless reading. On the other hand, both have provided more than few constructive suggestions, improvement proposals & etc., together with few strong objections against publication that I do agree with.
Nano Research n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 5.0
weeks
61.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Applied Geography 30.9
weeks
30.9
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: First, I would like to apologize to readers for my imperfect English.
The review process was very disappointing due to reviewers' comments, who rejected the paper with a very vague justification of 'not beeing geographic enough'; event. 'not fitting the journal of Applied Geography'. In fact, the paper aimed at multilevel analysis of factors related to adolescent substance use with a specific focus on both international levels and country-specific millieu (Czechia). Thus, I believe the paper employed geographic aspects as an explicit subject. At the same time, the paper tried to make some recommendations for drug policy; thus, the paper was 'applied' as well.
In the paper, a detailed discussion on several issues directly related to the research subject were provided (ca. 20 pages long manuscript). However, the 2 reviewers who advised rejection of the paper in the first round provided very brief comments of ca. 5-6 sentences. The commentaries did not pointed to any issues related to the text itself; therefore, the reviewers' professional background related to the manuscript subject made questionable impression. For completeness I also note that the commentary from the 3rd reviewer was just the opposite to the previous two reviewers. The rewiever 3 simply adviced for a direct acceptance of the paper with no other changes (the review comment of a total of 3 sentences).
Journal of Crystal Growth 3.1
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The handling process was smooth. There was a conflict between our opinion and reviewers opinion. So editor send our manuscript to the another reviewer. And finally our manuscript have been accepted. I recommend this journal
Journal of Alloys and Compounds n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 2 weeks management team told that "due to the high inflow of papers we currently have, the paper is currently in the pipeline with the assignment team and it will be assigned to the editor shortly"
After assigning to the editor, after 5 days editor rejected our paper by commenting just one line "Unfortunately, after an initial evaluation, I feel your manuscript is not appropriate for this journal's readership"
They took more than 3 weeks to write this one line comment.
I don't recommend this journal. Their handling process is very slow
Neuroscience 5.6
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.9
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Marriage and Family 13.1
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of European Social Policy 25.4
weeks
25.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Agrarian South 18.9
weeks
25.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer made excellent constructive comments on the paper. The changes were substantial but extremely helpful. S/He also directed me to several relevant literature in the field that improved the paper a lot.
Journal of Environmental Management 16.6
weeks
21.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
American Journal of Infection Control 6.4
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted