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
Cell Death and Disease n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Radioengineering 10.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Comments from 1st reviewer:
1. Presented development is explained clearly: Yes
2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) Yes
3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications Yes
4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes
5. Readability and English grammar are all right Yes
Other comments: It will be useful to have some simulated 3D radiation patterns so readers can find out which modes the antenna are operating at.

Comments from 2nd reviewer:
1. Presented development is explained clearly No
2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) No
3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications No
4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes
5. Readability and English grammar are all right No
Other comments: Readability and English needs to be checked before submission. Although the work is quite interesting; the paper is bad written. The contribution of the paper in the antennas design aspect is not in a satisfactory level.
Molecular Neurobiology 12.0
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Once we submitted our manuscript (13/03/18) first we waited almost two months without any answer. Once we complained they answered the 04/05/18 saying that due to the number of decline reviewers, they asked a member of the Editorial Board to review the manuscript. Finally one month after that, the reviewer and editor decided to reject the paper even though they liked the statistics, methodology, the novelty, the general question, writing and conclusions of our paper. Their major concern was related to the absence of supplementary tables but they did notice (neither they asked for) that we provided the link to a full repository with not only supplementary tables but also the code to generate every single figure in the paper from raw data. Therefore we wrote another letter to the editor (on 11/06/18) providing all the direct links to download these materials but the editor-in-chief simply responded that the decision for the manuscript was already final without giving any explanation.
Cell Systems n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Relatively quick turn around with option to transfer
Nature Cell Biology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: While the response that we received from the journal was pretty prompt, there were no specific reasons provided for rejection. Upon going through the entire letter we realized that the editors had not even read the paper and possibly rejected it either just from the abstract or due to pure neglect.
Cancer Cell n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A prompt response from the editor with comments pertaining to the study definitely helped us during this submission. The editor highlighted key points from our study and even suggested relevant sister journals wherein our work would be better appreciated. The experience was definitely worth the rejection.
ACS Nano 29.4
weeks
29.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Nano Futures 6.9
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Rapid, and easy, though review was not super thorough.
American Journal of Political Science 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was fast. It took only one day before we knew that we were under review. The quality of the reviews was ok. One had good ideas about how we could improve our manuscript, the other did not seem to have read the manuscript that well, based on the review it gave.
Current Science Drawn back before first editorial decision after 430 days Drawn back
Motivation: I am writing my personal experience with this journal. This journal kept your article in coma for at least one year (on the name of ‘under review “). This journal never replies to author queries. The editor does not cross check to whom he is sending reviewer request (They sent reviewer request to me to review my own paper!!!). Even after clarifying that I am the corresponding author for the manuscript, the editor did not reply to my mail. After waiting for one year 3 months, finally I wrote a mail to editor that I am withdrawing my manuscript due to inordinate delay in processing the manuscript. Again no reply from editor !!! The editorial staff of this journal does not reply to author queries.
European Journal of Operational Research 30.1
weeks
30.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Two review reports were helpful for improving our manuscript. Still, we are left with the feeling that EJOR was not the right match for our piece of research. However, it should not take 7 months to come to such conclusion.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 7.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: We received two constructive review reports, geared at helping to improve the manuscript. After major revision the manuscript was accepted.
SAGE Open Drawn back before first editorial decision after 151 days Drawn back
Motivation: They had difficulty finding an article editor to handle the paper. I was also informed that they had difficulties getting suitable reviewers. They requested for one month to attempt finding an article editor to which I agreed. After more than a month and no subsequent notice from the editorial manager, I withdrew my paper.
Psycho-Oncology 10.1
weeks
19.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Pharmacogenomics 8.6
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Human Brain Mapping 9.0
weeks
20.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This appeared an efficient and correct procedure.
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 13.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The submission process went very well.
Journal of World-Systems Research 18.7
weeks
25.2
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Geoscience n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor's comments were strange. I am even not sure that this editor has read the whole paper.
Nature Cell Biology n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After presubmission and invited full submission they did not send the manuscript to external reviewers
EMBO Reports n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cell Research n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Elife n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Cell Biology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cell Death and Differentiation 15.2
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 18.7
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reasons for rejection were a combination of misgivings about how our analysis had been carried out and a topic that was too restricted in its geographic relevance to be of wide interest.

There were a few comments that we feel betray some unfamiliarity with the type of analysis we carried out but other than this the feedback was comprehensive and will be useful when we resubmit to another journal. On this basis while the process took a long time, we feel the editorial staff took care in sourcing reviewers that will ultimately improve our article.
British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15.9
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Great & quick & helpful experience!
ACS Chemical Biology 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: 1 reviewer was for, the 2 others were against acceptance but without clear scientific reasons. One of the last reviewer said the manuscript might be out of scope...
Biology Letters 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer clearly hadn't read/understood the paper, other reviewer gave good comments.
Measurement Science and Technology 1.0
weeks
1.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ecological Applications n/a n/a 25.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Pretty slow for immediate rejection, especially with no reason given for rejection at all.
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor deemed the manuscript wasn't a sufficient advance to qualify it into the top 10% of papers submitted so rejected very quickly (same day). Happy with that turn-around and justification.
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast to immediate rejection. Rejected because it was deemed not in the top 20% of papers submitted. Fair enough, no complaints on this one.
Marine Biology 13.0
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Marine Ecology Progress Series n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Would have liked faster rejection speed for a rejection without sending to reviewers
Marine Ecology Progress Series 8.3
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall this was a good review process. I would have liked it to be a bit faster, but otherwise I have no complaints.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 8.0
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Conservation Letters 15.1
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: This was a strange case. Three reviewers: 1 strong rejection that defended their own past work rather than addressing anything in the manuscript itself; 1 intermediate review that found no real flaws with the manuscript, but suggested a stronger conservation focus would make it more suitable for the journal; and, 1 very detailed, critical and helpful review that strongly recommended publication in Conservation Letters after addressing the comments.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution n/a n/a 22.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Pretty slow to reject without review.
Journal of Applied Ecology n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No real criticisms. The speed to immediate rejection was fast, which is what you want if getting rejected without review.