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
Terrorism and Political Violence 11.6
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the reviewers' comments were appropriate and pointed out reasonable points for improvement. The text was improved by their suggestions, which were largely in line with each other. P
Acta Neuropathologica 4.9
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Science Advances 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Most of the comments raised by the reviewers were already explained or figures were present in the supplementary materials. Reviewers seemed subjective and even stated wrong literature information. It was a poor handling of the manuscript and it took more than two months.
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 8.7
weeks
15.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The processing time was very long, although I could track the overall progress using the new Elsevier tracking tool. Most of the 'Review' time was spent on Reviewer #2 who did not seem very interested in this paper. That Reviewer submitted one short comment following the first round of reviews stating that they didn't believe the problem was posed correctly but presented no evidence. However, Reviewer #1, obviously an expert in this field, was very thorough and considerate and suggested useful additions to the manuscript. I waited for about 1.5 months before the Editor communicated their final decision to me but no reviewer comments came through, it was just an 'accept' letter.
Scientific Reports 15.4
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The most surprising thing was that the journal needed 1 month to assign the paper to an editor, that we never know who she/he was. Then, although the information on the website read as "review received" the editorial decision was not made until one month later.
Case Studies on Transport Policy Drawn back before first editorial decision after 69 days Drawn back
Motivation: The manuscript has been sitting with the editor for a couple of months; then, we sent a message offering help finding reviewers with no answer. So, we decided to withdraw.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17.1
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Advanced Functional Materials 3.7
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Cell Reports 22.1
weeks
29.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took more than usual timeframe but it was worth the wait as the peer-review was so detailed and helped a lot to improve the manuscript.
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cancer Research n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 43.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Internet Research n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Frontiers in Big Data 14.3
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The handling editor recommended to reject the article after one month of review, but for some bizarre reason his decision was not finalized in the website. We had to wait 2 more months to get the final decision.
International Review of Administrative Sciences 8.7
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Rigorous review process. Managed to convince one reviewer of our approach.
Science 25.0
weeks
25.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Rejection after many, many months under review, and based on biased, technically incorrect reviews, because a paper "cannot compete for space" is signs of gross editorial failure (without even mentioning the dubious papers that do manage to compete for space). The review process here is not objective and has no connection to science.
Science of the Total Environment 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process could be faster. The reviewers comments were overall very good, so the rejection was a little unexpected.
International Journal of Medical Informatics 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Oncogenesis 5.0
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Informetrics n/a n/a 62.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very bad review process, with different types of bias and personal attacks
Child: Care, Health and Development 32.7
weeks
44.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: Not recommended. Manuscript sent out to different reviewers multiple times; extensive periods of time "awaiting Editor decision"... 1.5 years later and still waiting.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 7.0
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nature Geoscience 6.7
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Both reviewers acknowledged the novelty and importance of the work but recognized some problems with methodology. If the editor was knowledgeable enough in the subject area, they would have been able to make a much better decision as the methodological problems were contrived and easily remedied by re-writing for clarity.
Social Psychological and Personality Science 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Bioinformatics 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected by the associate editor because we were falsely accused of being arrogant and ignorant. The first reviewer who made these accusations also portrayed himself/herself as an expert, but sentence after sentence in the review was false and can be proven false. The review was set up to make us look as if we were attacking the scientific community, and the associate editor bought into it. So disturbing!
Basic and Applied Ecology 10.1
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Functional Ecology 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Rejected
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 4.9
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The journal provides a swift and clear pathway to process the manuscript submission. It was a good experience to submit my work to this journal with constructive feedback.
Scientometrics n/a n/a 62.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: To justify the manuscript's rejection (without external review) the only comment was as follows: "Comment by the editor: We have again decided against publication in our journal for the following reasons. Firstly, the theoretical embedding of the model into the scientometric context seems to be problematic. The same questions regarding quantification and measurement of the notion of quality (both peer review and journal) can be quantified and measured. Again, we do not see any attempt of giving empirical examples to show concrete implications for quantitative science studies. Finally, the grandiosely introduced free online tool proved a formula for just calculating sensitivity/specificity values based on partially obscure parameters without any other features."

We sent an email to the EiC of Scientometrics (without response). In our email, we said that such an editor's comment shows a content-based bias in our research. This is so because the purpose of peer-review is not to ”kill the paper,” but to evaluate it in terms of its strengths and limitations. However, the editor's comment involves partiality against our submission by virtue of the content (i.e., methods and theoretical orientation) of the work. This is the confirmation bias that challenges the impartiality of peer
review because an editor should evaluate a submission on the basis of its content and relationship to the literature, independently of their own theoretical/methodological preferences and commitments. Furthermore, this is a disciplinary editor that prefers mainstream research and exhibits bias against our interdisciplinary research that used Bayesian inference and Information Theory to define the optimal value of sensitivity and specificity of the peer-review process. In addition, he or she also has a contemptuous and little considerate treatment of us authors.

Please, see the repetitive use of “again”, and the lack of sense of some of their sentences. Especially disrespectful and with a complete lack of rigor and knowledge is their comment “the grandiosely introduced free online tool proved a formula for just calculating sensitivity/specificity values based on partially obscure parameters without any other features." On the other hand, it is especially relevant that their comment (without external review) of 7 lines of text, took them a total of two full months. In my opinion, it is another clear attempt to hinder our work.

By definition, mathematics and computer science are quantitative fields and also we published more than 30 papers in the same journal using a similar theoretical orientation.

However, in the last year, it seems that this same approach (theoretical and mathematical) is no longer valid for this editor repetitively assigned to our submissions. He or she is clearly an editor opposed to our approach and work, who does not send the works for external review, although showing that he or she is clearly not an expert in his/her comments that lack (in our opinion) the minimum rigor necessary to evaluate the work of scientists (more after publishing around thirty papers in Scientometrics).
Nature Communications 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were basing their arguments on information that was not true. Editor did not intervene. One reviewer gave 21 major comments, most of which were already present in the manuscript. There was a fundamental flaw in the way the manuscript was handled. The manuscript was published somewhere else with a higher impact factor a few months after the rejection.
Science Advances n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
EMBO Reports n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Reproductive Sciences 14.0
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: Extremely slow process. Mediocre reviews, somewhat lacking expertise.
Food Hydrocolloids 6.3
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor offered a transfer after completing the review without any reason
International Journal of Epidemiology n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The information in the email response about the rejection reasons is rather generic. It goes as follows:

Due to the number of submissions we receive, which is many more than we can publish, I regret that the Journal will not be able to use your manuscript.

This decision was based on the editors' evaluation of the merits of your manuscript compared with those of the many others we receive. This evaluation includes consideration of the paper's interest to our readers, the originality and design of the study and the quality of the manuscript.
Oecologia n/a n/a 35.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Economics and Philosophy n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Elife 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
International Mathematics Research Notices 23.9
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: One referee suggests accepting with very positive comments, while the other suggests rejecting because we did not cite one reference which is actually not relevant to our study.