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
Journal of Biogeography 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The Chief Editor wrote "Your manuscript has been examined editorially and I regret that I am rejecting it without formal review". This was followed by the comments of the Subject Editor referring to that "the manuscript has received three excellent reviews, recommending either ‚reject’ (Reviewer 1) or ‚requiring substantial revision and re-re-view’ (Reviewers 2 & 3). The reviewers´ comments were not provided to us. We had to ask for these and it took some days to get them. The comments were not available in the online system either.
Soldagem & Inspeção 33.1
weeks
37.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: It took almost a year to be published online. Perhaps more than one year to the printed version.
Materials and Design n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Land Economics 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: I appreciate the comments that the two reviewers gave.
ACS Catalysis 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We received reports of 3 reviewers. 2 reviewers made positive comments about the importance of our work and suggested some very useful revisions to strengthen the manuscript. Both of them recommend acceptance after some revisions (First reviewer - mijor, second - major). However, third reviewer totally misunderstood our work and made comments which were "strange" as well as claimed we "did no do anything new" and offered rejection of our work. The editor (Huimin Zhao) rejected our work immediately without giving any explanation.
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We sent our manuscript at 8 AM and received a response within hours, I remember the decision letter stating that our manuscript almost "caught their attention". Our manuscript ended up being accepted in a similar journal.
Clinical Science n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Blood 0.0
weeks
0.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: It was quite fast process.
Moreover, 2 out of 3 review's comments are exceptionally valuable to improve my future research.
Human Reproduction 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Topical and constructive reviews, fast turnaround -- overall a very good experience.
Nucleic Acids Research 2.9
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Creativity and Innovation Management 28.2
weeks
57.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Long review times. Encouraging editor.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 10.0
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Scientific Reports 9.9
weeks
42.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Scientific Reports advertises fast decision and constructive peer review, but the process is anything but. As other reviews here indicate, each submission requires a 2 week long quality check before it is sent to the editor. If one minute error is found, you have to start over. After the long process of waiting for review reports to come back (~2-3 months each time), the reviewers were clearly not knowledgeable about the subject matter. Comments from one reviewer in particular were not constructive and complained that the paper was not scientifically sound without providing justification. After two rounds of revision and satisfying two out of three reviewers, the editor decided to send the manuscript to a fourth reviewer who ultimately rejected it. Reviewers complained that the findings of the manuscript are not noteworthy even though the journal explicitly states not to make judgement on significance.
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast editorial decision. Rejected based on lack of compelling conceptual advance.
Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 15.3
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)
Rejected
Water Resources Research 15.3
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ecology and Evolution 12.3
weeks
24.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process improve our work, but the entire process is too long.
Materials Chemistry and Physics 41.6
weeks
46.0
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was submitted on October, 1st, 2016. In December the referees for this paper was found. In June, 2017 I inquired about the manuscript status to the editor and found that one of the referees has disappeared. Therefore the editor in Chief accepted the manuscript based on the one review and his personal impression on the paper. Overall process took too long due the missing review from one of the referees.
Higher Education Research and Development 0.9
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was great - good communication and prompt feedback.
Energy Policy 28.7
weeks
31.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review reports were detailed and communication was clear. However, I did wait a long time for peer review feedback, and I only heard back after reminding the editor.
Biology Letters 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The duration was really long and one of the two reviews was batched (the other review was correct). I would like to say that I have no problem with being rejected (rejection is the rule in Academia), but I want to denounce the low quality of this journal (or for being fair, my bad experience with this journal.
Research in Higher Education n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 23.3
weeks
31.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journals of Gerontology, Series B 7.3
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.0
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process for this journal was very time-efficient and the editorial office was clear in their email communication. Having published a protocol with the journal, we are pleased the results paper will appear in the same journal.
Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena Drawn back before first editorial decision after 90 days Drawn back
Motivation: The submitted manuscript apparently was sent to several reviewers. However, no suitable referee could be found within three months. While finding a referee might indeed be a difficult task in some cases, I would have appreciated a note from the editorial office regarding the status of my manuscript after such a long time.
Instead, information was only given after I contacted the editorial team myself. I also never received any answer from the editor himself (who is, in fact, unknown to me up to this date).
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 11.7
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Constructive remarks from the reviewers. Serious handle by the editor.
However, the editing process did not respect the mathematics typo I used and degrade it.
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer n/a n/a 67.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Physics, B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I think the editor decision was fair and reasonable, because we provided new results but of not interested ions enough to the scientific society.
Analytical Chemistry n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Migration 13.4
weeks
31.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Remote Sensing of Environment n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0
(very bad)
Accepted (im.)
ACS Nano n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7.1
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Molecular Ecology n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected without being set to reviewers by an editor whose field of expertise if different of that of the study. The editor comments mischaracterized the scope and results of the study. The paper was finally published in a journal with a higher impact factor than Molecular Ecology, without major changes in the results and conclusions.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was constructive and fair. The second reviewer, however, was no constructive and seems to have not understood the paper. The comments were irrelevant and not substantive.
Nature Chemistry n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Development Studies 16.1
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Both reviews said they liked the paper and the comments were small things to fix. The editor even mention in his rejection that both reviews liked the paper but that because of the large amount of submitting they received they rejected it. I was able to make the changes the reviews suggested in same day and submitted to another journal. It seems the editor should have desk rejected the paper if he felt the topic was not a match for the paper, but honestly I am not sure why the paper was rejected.

Also one of the reviewers clearly did not read the paper as his comments made little to no sense.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 21.4
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted