All reviews received by SciRev

Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
10.1 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I haven't marked the highest score because the manuscript seemed to be stucked in the editorial process at two times and advanced only after I contacted the editorial office.
10.6 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Our paper was average in terms of journal quality. After multiple revisions, we successfully improve our paper quality.
12.6 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
7.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
8.4 weeks
26.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of revision took a reasonable 2 months, and the comments were relatively constructive and appropriate, and it took us two months to address the comments. However, it took 4 months to receive the editor's decision. The reason was that one of the reviewers was not responsive, and the editor had to assign a new reviewer. Therefore, I had to address 3 reviewers' (instead of the initial 2 reviewers) comments.
7.4 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
11.4 weeks
26.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: My experience of the review process with Cognition & Emotion is positive, despite it taking 3 revision rounds. The reviewers and editor comments were mostly very helpful and perceptive, and the last review round was solely due to a very precise reading by the editor, requiring a final small mistake to be corrected in the manuscript. I highly appreciated that level of detail from the editor.
11.0 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editor wrote a friendly (yet somehow not informal) and encouraging decision letter after the first round of reviews, which made the review process actually pleasant.
10.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The submission and review processes were smooth. The reviewers provided constructive comments to make the manuscript stronger and clearer. In addition, the administrative editor was so caring to help us revise the manuscript aligned with the journal guideline. It was a great experience of our submission.
14.0 weeks
33.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer comments were helpful and reasonable, but the process took too long. There was no need to send out the second revision to the reviewers again (only a handful of very minor changes) and an editorial decision could have been made at this point already.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
11.9 weeks
26.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was a bit slow however the reviews were professional and constructive. The reviewer's comments and suggestions helped to improve the original submission. The handling editor was also responsive and helpful.
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: It seemed that the review has been delivered long-time age however the handling editor processed it only when I inquired about the status ~2.5 month after submission.
6.1 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
1
Rejected
16.7 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I've sent my article to special issue entitled as "Machine Learning and High-Performance Computing in Healthcare Applications (VSI-lhha)"

My article proposes a textile-based system for the detection and monitoring of sitting posture disorders.

The article primarily includes high performance calculation results (99.3% accuracy).

The data taken from the seat cover were classified by 7 different machine learning methods for 5 different classes.

The proposed system has the potential to be used and personalized with a mobile application.

The proposed system has adaptable components for the care of inpatients, especially for the prevention of bedsores.

I shared all the data I used in my article with the readers.

For the first time in the literature, a kinect-based automatic labeling method is proposed.

I think that my article deserves to be submitted at least for peer review.

I've contacted the editor-in-chief of journal and editor of the special issue so that they could explain why it doesn't fit the scope of the journal even with a few sentences about rejection but anyone didn't return .
21.1 weeks
35.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Drawn back
21.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
0
Rejected
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast feedback.
39.9 weeks
45.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I feel pretty lucky to publish in the Journal of Functional Analysis.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Topic was not interesting enough to the editor (no detailed comments, rather vague).
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They offered a transfer to the sister open-access journal Advanced Engineering Materials.
16.9 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: Editor was unable to find reviewers and so it wasn't until 4 months later that we received news of the rejection. One of the reviews was very brief and contained factual errors.
21.6 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 57.0 weeks
Drawn back
Motivation: After almost two months of inactivity from the Editor, we decided to withdraw the manuscript. After two requests for information about the status of the manuscript, the Editor was contacted by the Journal Manager, but nothing happened.
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Although referee reports were adequate, time taken to review was on the excessive side compared to its contents.
n/a
n/a
151 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We have had a desk rejection after 5 months! No reason was given, excepting they are 'receiving many papers'. Totally regrettable. This is not a serious journal.
1.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite fast, and comments reviewers were valued in the improved manuscript
45.6 weeks
45.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Drawn back
Motivation: 10 months for one (1) peer review report with the offer to revise and re-submit. Withdrawn because of the painfully slow process.
27.0 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
Motivation: The review was delayed by half of the year just because one of the reviewers did not respond. The editors did not try to invite a new reviewer and informed us of this situation after four months.
I wasted a long time for outright rejection. It was a terrible experience.
17.1 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript took almost a month to be processed due to it being un-submitted for formatting "issues" that are not laid out in the submission guidelines. The review quality was exceptionally poor with one reviewer making methodological comments without knowing anything about quantitative methods. Another reviewer did not read past page 12.
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
4.3 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted