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 Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 2.0
weeks
2.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Drawn back
Mind and Language 52.9
weeks
74.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
biofuels n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The immediate decision was fast without wasting time.
Astrobiology 13.9
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Astrobiology 22.1
weeks
33.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Excellent comments on the manuscript have been given by the associated editor.
Microchemical Journal 9.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Firstly, very long review time that is inconsistent with the advertised first decisitime. Secondly, from the two reviews one was accept after revisions while praising the work. The second review was reject by a reviewer unfamiliar with the analytical method who only argued that he doesnsee audience interest! The editor with no third review or any explanation rejected too. Overall such a waste of time. It used to be a great journal a few years ago. By the way manuscript accepted in a higher if journal later. Save your 2 month time and send to another journal
Critical Criminology 13.9
weeks
26.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Industrial Ecology 13.7
weeks
16.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Sustainability 13.1
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Energy 22.0
weeks
30.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Applied Optics 12.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Research Policy n/a n/a 43.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. In such a case the case for the reject should be a bit more detailed than a standard desk rejection
Plant Physiology 9.3
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Just a quick add-on comment:
I was very busy with other matters during the submission process of this paper, which elongated the review process. Although the editor and the journal staff were helpful, patient and undestanding along the way, If I could've focused on the revisions better, and submitted them faster, the process could've been even faster.
Physical Review E n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Advanced Functional Materials n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor offered us a direct transfer to a sister journal.
Journal of Development Studies n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 14.6
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: 2 reviewers: Major Revision
1 reviewer: Reject & Resubmit
1 reviewer: Reject
editor outcome: reject since he/she thought that it needs more time than a normal time for major revision.
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 17.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews were short and too general. Reviewer 2 basically suggests we read and cite two papers that were not relevant to our work.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 10.9
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor is very responsible, and the manuscript processing speed is also very fast. The opinions of the review experts are very professional. After two revisions, the quality of the article has been greatly improved, and the article was received smoothly.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Landscape and Urban Planning 11.7
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review reports we have received were great: detailed, useful, polite, and encouraging acceptance after the reasonable revisions. The communication with the editor was pretty good as well. However, we also feel that the process should have been shorter: receiving the reviews took the time (e.g. more than a month after revising the paper appropriately and agreeing to nearly all the comments of the reviewers), and on a few occasions the editor's turnaround was not very quick (e.g. it took a few weeks to send the paper for review).
Journal of Applied Phycology 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The review comments was very informative and useful.
Cities 19.4
weeks
26.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
British Journal of Sociology of Education n/a n/a 43.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: One month and a half is a very long time for a desk reject.
Biology Letters 4.3
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nonlinear Dynamics 6.0
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Physical Chemistry, B n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Genome 19.1
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Computational and Theoretical Chemistry n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Statistical Physics n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 33.0
weeks
42.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The duration of the first review took 8 months, that is very long. From the 3 review reports received, 2 of them were very positive and constructive whilst the third reviewer was very negative and very rude. His criticism was not based on the scientific content of the manuscript but rather on what he thought was appropriate to address in the article.
Journal of Chemical Physics n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Plant Cell n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I submitted our paper as a "Presubmission Inquiry". The editor(s) responded very quickly, and pointed out that they don't think our paper would be "broadly useful to the community" and recommended against a full-fledged submission. Overall, the process saved a lot of our time and the editors' and reviewers'.
Nature Neuroscience n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Lancet Public Health n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Australian Dental Journal n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Medical Hypotheses n/a n/a 48.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Journal rejected the manuscript because was not able tp find reviewers
Australian Dental Journal n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.1
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was efficient and very constructive.
The feedbacks from the reviewers and the editors helped us a lot to improve the article.