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
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 16.1
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The two review reports received were largely accurate and helpful. I have two concerns with the general editorial handling.

1) Nine days after the initial submission, I received a request from the same journal to review another manuscript. While this was not suitable for me, I felt more obliged than usual, as I suspected that the review request might have come from the same associate editor handling my paper. Normally, one would know, but in this case, the identity of the handling editor was not revealed until the final decision (of the first submission) was made, 113 days after submission! While I am generally happy to review manuscripts, and the one assigned to me fit well, it felt like a little bit of a "blackmail" situation. (On a side note, after submitting my review of that manuscript on time, that manuscript was ready for decision for around four months before a decision was taken!)

2) It is not acceptable that a journal, that allows their reviewers 14 days to complete a report, takes such long time to reach a decision!
Nature Communications n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Economic Review n/a n/a 22.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Environmental Research n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: 1) Rejection was based on a reviewer who was clearly not an expert in the filed. Criticisms didn't have any sense from a methodological point of view, and was not considered in the appeal.
2) The whole revision process with a final decision took 5 months (1 revision and 1 appeal), and communication was extremely slow or no communication at all.
3) It seems that the decision of rejection was based not much on the bad revision of one of the reviewer but on the topic of our study probably not interesting enough for the journal that sent the paper anyway to reviewers with a wait of 11 weeks after the the decision to reject it.
Biological Psychiatry n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Light: Science and Applications 3.6
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Standard, nondescript answer.
Nature n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: If you are somehow important, come from a "name brand" school, or know the editor, I'd say go ahead and submit, regardless of the quality of your work.
Science Advances n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The initial evaluation by the editors is very slow. They found 1 minute in over 2 weeks to make the decision. No useful comments, waste of time. The editors are all university professors, which differs from Nature publishing group. Initial I thought it means more professionals, but now I realized it means very slow because the professors are too busy. They don't have time to consider the manuscript seriously.
Human Molecular Genetics n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Water Resources Research 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Two of the three reviews were very similar and certain passages were nearly copy-pasted from each other. After bringing this to the attention of the handling editor and the editor in chief, they responded by saying that the two reviewers couldn't have colluded on their reviews because they have never co-authored a paper together, without following up with them directly. The quality of the two reviews was also very low and it was obvious that they had not fully read the manuscript. The third reviewer who had clearly paid more attention to the manuscript had advocated for major revisions but the paper was rejected.
Journal of Ginseng Research 13.6
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
BMC Cancer 17.3
weeks
24.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
The Lancet Global Health n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cell Reports 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: We submitted to this journal due to their quick review process and were extremely pleased with their fast handling of our manuscript. The initial handling by the editor was extremely efficient and the manuscript was sent for review within a week of submission. It took a total of 3 more weeks for the reviewer reports to be received which again was pretty quick as opposed to our earlier experiences.
While handling of the manuscript was definitely efficient we were disappointed with the quality of reviewer comments received. The reviewer comments indicated that several questions raised were already answered in the document/figures and others indicated conducting unnecessary experiments which could result in 4 different publications. Other queries pertaining to formatting the manuscript were well received by us. While the nature of the comments indicated that we could have communicated with the editorial office, clarified any misinterpretation of our manuscript and performed necessary experiments to strengthen our findings; we were advised against a re-submission due to the 'concerns raised by the reviewers'. The experience was definitely disheartening as we received no relevant scientific comments and got an indication that the manuscript had not bee reviewed thoroughly.
Biological Conservation 6.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: My experience with this journal is exactly how I would expect a paper to be handled. The first decision was in a reasonable time, I got three quality reviews that improved the clarity of the manuscript, and the turn around to acceptance was also very quick.
Journal of Network and Computer Applications 12.3
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was smooth and the reviewers helped me improve the paper. However, I found one of the reviewers repeatedly requesting for additions to the reference list with each reference belonging to a single author. I believe the editor should check such reviewers and push back against this.
Journal of Field Robotics 11.9
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: An international journal indexed in JCR as Q1 can't make a decision having only one review, especially when the report only provides one reason, does not indicate changes to perform and can be seen as subjective.
Journal of Field Robotics 18.4
weeks
53.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The whole review process took us more than one year, so the paper was published almost two years after the work was performed. Four rounds of revisions were performed with the following results: major changes, minor changes, major changes and acceptance. I can't find the logic when you apply minor changes suggested by reviewers and their next review suggests major changes. Additionally, there were contradictions between the reviewers that the editors did not solve.
Sensors 16.4
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: We had five reviews that really improved our paper. One of the reviewers didn't agree with the rest, but the editors solved this issue and finally published the paper. Our only complaint was the excesive publication fee.
Sensors 3.4
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: This time we only had two reviews and our paper was directly accepted. We miss the deepness of the reviews of other times in Sensors.
Sensors 2.7
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This time the reviews were both fast and rigorous.
Autonomous Robots 19.3
weeks
32.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was rigorous, but it took a very long time.
Global Change Biology 8.6
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The submission was straightforward. GCB honoured their 60-day reviewer timeline and accepted the revised manuscript quickly. Additionally, the manuscript available through early view extremely quickly, which ultimately allowed it to be read and cited before it has officially come out.
Ageing and Society n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neuron 5.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editorial decision to go against the decision of the initial reviewers 1 and 2 and seek out a fourth reviewer are very strange. The whole process lacked transparency. I am very disappointed in how the editor handled this process and am not likely to submit another paper here soon.
International Journal of Epidemiology n/a n/a 40.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I found six weeks for a desk reject without any comment very long for a public health journal.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 24.0
weeks
27.9
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Health and Place n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neuropsychopharmacology 3.9
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was extremely quick and efficient.
Glia n/a n/a 60.8
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor took over six weeks to make editorial rejection. Too long.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Journal of Environmental Management 29.0
weeks
34.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: An AE wrote a summary of the paper missing the main point and rejected it.
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 11.3
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The first time the AE comlpetely missed the novelties.
then i was assigned a reviewer who hardly wrote in English and asked generic questions (e.g. I wonder if the two methods are different, of course they were) or would just not understand and ask for clarifications.
In the three rounds of reviewing one referee never acknowledged I had answered his/er previous comments, but would just come up with new meaningless requests.
I found it totally unethical to let a referee just argue for the sake of not making a paper published. The other referee said it was ok after the second review.
Journal of Statistics Education n/a n/a 67.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor rejected on the grounds the content was not suited for the jpurnal. I replied pointing out i had replicated a study published in two papers in that journal. She never replied.