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
International Immunopharmacology 8.7
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Algal Research 11.6
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Smooth process. Good reviews, helpful for improvement of the manuscript
Journal of Experimental Medicine n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Socio-Economic Review 9.1
weeks
26.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Pretty normal review, not superfast, but the editor found useful reviewers that helped sharpen the focus of the paper. We were surprised that the revised manuscript was sent out again, though, as there were no "difficult" revisions.
IEEE Access 3.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Politics 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers' feedback was detailed and helpful. Although I disagreed with key parts of the feedback (inevitable!), overall I agree the decision to reject was well-considered. Editor's comments were considered and kind. Turn around time was faster than expected, as I had not released that it had been sent to reviewers.
Preventive Medicine 7.0
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was good though took a bit of time, fair assessment after initial review and was given the opportunity to incorporate changes while some may have chosen to reject. Saw the value in the paper and provided opportunity to improve.
Mind 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Cognition n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cognitive Science n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Child Development 13.4
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
British Journal of Developmental Psychology 14.3
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Communications - Scientific Letters of the University of Žilina 13.3
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Cultural Studies 4.1
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and insightful review process. When I did not agree with all comments of the reviewers, the editor respected this. The communication went very smoothly.
Frontiers in Psychology Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0 days Drawn back
Frontiers in Psychology Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0 days Drawn back
Annals of Behavioral Medicine n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Geospatial Health 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ecosphere 7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Zoological Science 5.1
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Freshwater Biology 8.0
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Geometric Analysis 19.4
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Editor quickly handled the manuscript assigning reviewers within 10 days from submission.
We received two reports within 4 months. One was particularly detailed and gave us the opportunity to improve the manuscript by clarifying some points which we didn't explain in a crystal-clear way.
Chaos 5.3
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Entropy 2.7
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Entropy 7.0
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Physical Journal: Special Topics 19.7
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Physical Journal: Special Topics 7.7
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Applied Poultry Research 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Only from one reviewer we received comments. Not sure a second one was found. Comments were however usefull
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were professional with relevant backgrounds and the whole process was tightly managed by the editor
Journal of Biophotonics 7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Rapid turnaround, there were very minor revisions so it was a good experience
Analyst 3.4
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review was professional and timely.
After the revision was sent it was quickly processed and accepted.
It was clear that the reviewers had the relevant background
Ecography Immediately accepted after 0.3 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: A brevia paper in Ecography
Nature Geoscience Immediately accepted after 15.6 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: My paper was sent to review by two reviewers, and was accepted within 7 months
Behavioral Ecology n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Behavioral Ecology n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Experimental Botany n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Animal Behaviour n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecological Entomology 10.0
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Biological Psychiatry 3.3
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The expedience of this review process was a plus. However, 2 of the 3 review reports were unsatisfactory: one barely commented on the quality of the manuscript and instead focussed on particular aspects that could easily be addressed in comments, while the other had a number of confusing (at one point commenting on a missing figure panel, when there was no such figure panel intended for or ever mentioned in the manuscript). That the editor relied on these subpar reviews to make a decision is unfortunate. It is understandable that this is a fairly high impact journal with a great number of submissions, but that the reviews were not scrutinized is, again, unfortunate.