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
Population Studies 12.9
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The overall submission process was neat. Unfortunately, the review report that resulted in rejection contained false statements.
Journal of Management Education 9.7
weeks
19.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: JME say that they take a developmental approach to working with authors, and this was certainly my experience. The reviews were insightful but extremely constructive. I learnt a lot from two of the reviewers (one review was very light) and my paper was greatly improved, and makes a much stronger contribution now.
Bioconjugate Chemistry 0.6
weeks
0.6
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Differential Equations n/a n/a 30.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Functional Analysis 26.0
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Annales de l'Institut Fourier 26.0
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Journal of Functional Analysis n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 9.6
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The process was reasonably fast and quite transparent. The reviewer's report was short but reasonable and well argumented.
mBio 4.6
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The declared manuscript handling delays were respected throughout the process, the peer reviews and comments from the academic editor were in-depth and constructive. The only negative are the relatively high publication fees.
Psychological Medicine n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The journal did not give any reason for rejection. Even a few lines of feedback would have helped improve my manuscript, or help decide the next journal. Overall, I found time to desk rejection too long.
Economica n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process was quick and transparent. The argument for the decision is solid and well justified.
International Business Review 4.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Transplant International 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 4.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The time of submission to first review is approx. 1 month. Second revision reviews might come in approx. a month after submission. Final decision comes in a few weeks time. Overall, the quality of review is excellent. Definitely helps improving the paper.
British Journal of Psychology n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I found the review process very fast and adequate.
Cell Reports 16.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Motivation: While this was during the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 weeks is unreasonable when the journal claims a rapid process. Moreover, the editor did not respond in a timely manner to numerous inquiries. It has now been over 2 weeks since submitting the response to reviewers' comments, and the editor has not responded. Not responding is unprofessional.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 15.4
weeks
28.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 20.9
weeks
32.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Environmental Microbiology Reports 3.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very rapid. Review comments were constructive but limited in scope. Editor assessment was constructive but limited in scope. All correspondence was handled professionally.
Science Advances 6.0
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast review and revision processes compared with other journals I submitted, but the second round took a bit longer than expected.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 20.6
weeks
38.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers did a great job of returning reviews quickly, but it took much longer for the AE to reach a decision at each round.
Evolution 3.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good reviews, rapid feedback, constructive and critical. Will submit again here for another paper down the line, I am sure.
PeerJ 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent, thorough reviews and rapid decision time. Expensive journal but can recommend it for sure.
PLoS ONE 15.1
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Trash journal. One reviewer had minor revisions recommended, the other major. Editor then took the liberty to reject it outright, without any helpful feedback, and then refused to provide any useful feedback when approached. Very slow process and ultimately a huge waste of time. Do not submit here.
Growth and Change 8.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Fairly quick review rounds with helpful and constructive reviews which contributed to improving my article. I was overall very satisfied with the process.
Nature n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Microbes and Environments 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Review was timely and review comments were constructive. Editorial process seemed fair and impartial. I would have preferred an opportunity to address the review comments, rather than an outright rejection, as the review comments seemed like they could have been addressed.
Water 5.1
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ceramics International 3.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of International Marketing 7.1
weeks
22.9
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer team is very profesional, and always help with solutions to the issues. However is a hard process, an currently all paper may pass triple round review.
Scientific Reports 7.3
weeks
23.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: None of the reviews raised any serious challenges to the research and the writeup of the ms. At the end of the day, after we had, in our judgment, thoroughly addressed all the reviewer's points, none of our rebuttals were addressed but the editor had a colleague on the editorial board review it and this editor, who was obviously ignorant of the domain, recommended rejection. What was particularly galling was that the action editor provided no opportunity to address this last review. All in all, it was the worst and most caprisious editorial experience I've had or witnessed (I myself have been an editor) in my professional life.
Psychogeriatrics 19.6
weeks
29.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Since all review comments were very suggestive, our manuscript was significantly improved through the review process. Very nice comments. However, the duration of the first review round was long.
Nature n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Statistical Science Drawn back before first editorial decision after 492 days Drawn back
Motivation: It is not polite to give any answer regarding the review of the paper within almost 18 months.
Human Reproduction n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 71 days Drawn back
Motivation: It is easy for your manuscript to be lost in this journal. They have updated their submission system which do not allow you to track your manuscript. Besides, it is common that you will struggle in selecting appropriate handling editor, and on many occasions will not accept your manuscript and will be going in circles.
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 5.9
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Clinical Oral Investigations 7.9
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Physiology and Behavior 12.3
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Scientific Reports n/a n/a 251.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)