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
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS Genetics 7.1
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Computers in Biology and Medicine 5.5
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 11.1
weeks
24.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Selection and Assessment 26.0
weeks
27.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This manuscript was handled poorly by the previous editor but as of 2019, the new editor has been responsive and professional.
Molecular Psychiatry 31.3
weeks
31.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Revista de Estudos Criminais 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: O processo editorial da Revista de Estudos Criminais é de qualidade, com celeridade e gentil atenção aos autores. A aprovação retornou em menos de 2 meses. Não recebi os pareceres integrais, mas somente pequenas sugestões formais de aprimoramento. Há revisão ortográfica por profissional. A editora envia um exemplar impresso ao autor. Recomendo a submissão para a revista.
Advanced Functional Materials n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript passed the "To Advisor" stage after initial submission and stayed "under considerations" with a given editor for few more days. In the end it was a standard desk rejection with the text below.

"Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.

We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
Current Biology 5.0
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Publishing with Current Biology was a great experience. The editorial team was exceptionally helpful and very responsive. The reviews we received were critical yet thoughtful and constructive. Ultimately, our paper was available online within about 5.5 months from the original submission. I would definitely submit another manuscript here in the future.
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was suggested to be published in a more specialized journal.
AIDS and Behavior 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Microbiological Research 7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We submitted a manuscript to this journal about microbial cell wall structure. The handling time of the manuscript was fast, which is the only positive remark we have about this experience. The quality of the reviewers reports was beyong abysmal. The manuscript was clearly handed to people who had very little experience in the subject area. They did not question any experimental aspect or the discussion of our data. We used biophysical methods and one reviewer actually used the phrase "Byophysical data do not have biological relevance", which is a very problematic remark. Said reviewer also couldn't be professional enough to phrase his feelings towards the manuscript in a polite manner, while displaying a very poor knowledge of our subject area's literature. Sadly, we were not given a right to respond to his comments, which would have been very easy to do. The manuscript is now published in a much better journal.
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 5.6
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Expeditious, no-nonsense review process.
Genetics 3.7
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: expeditious reviews with reasonable requests
Nature n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Development 5.4
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Timely, reasonable reviews.
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 4.4
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick and reasonable reviews.
Remote Sensing of Environment n/a n/a 56.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Cancer 2.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Thin Solid Films 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It was not clear whether the reviewers recommended rejection or major revisions. Both reviewers provided detailed assessment with the list of parts, which needed correction, which implied that major revisions was their preferred verdict. However, the Editor rejected the manuscript. The context implies that our methodology was the major issue, especially the absence of XRD and Raman spectral analysis.
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 10.1
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was of high quality and fair, but took a lot of time. It seemed they had difficulties finding reviewers. Even though the reviewers voted for "major revision", the resubmitted manuscript was treated as a new submission. Thus, the dates of submission and acceptance which are shown on the paper are actually only representing the time after the first round of reviews and are not reflecting the whole process.
Nature Chemistry n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 11.3
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The first round decision (i.e., from initial submission to the first round decision following reviews) did take a long time. The quality of the reviews varied, but it helped that the editor got 3 reviewers for my paper. I did get some good feedback and I think it was warranted to have 3 reviewers on this paper. Following the first round of reviews and decision, the length for the remainder of the process was mostly because I took the full time to submit revisions. The editor made timely decisions and also provided very helpful feedback and summaries of the 3 reviewers statements. I did not particularly like the delivery system for the reviews as some of the general fields are not all that helpful. The reviews did greatly improve my paper and I was very happy overall with the process. The process moves very quickly once the article is accepted, which is also very nice. I had a really great editor so that definitely made my experience very positive. It is also helpful that they have the waiver/fee assistance for graduate students that do not have funding to pay the open access/publication fee.
Geologica Carpathica 6.7
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was accurate and useful. The manuscript was carefully evaluated in every aspect by both the reviewers (which were extremely competent on the subject of the paper) and by the editor. This process greatly improved the manuscript.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Sociological Methods and Research n/a n/a 80.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Beyond the extremely long time it took the editor to make a decision on the paper, neither the editor nor his staff answered two messages during this long process when I inquired about the status of the paper. The interface showed that paper was "awaiting editorial decision" for many weeks and then the status changed to "awaiting reviewers selection" and then about a week later the editor suddenly informed me that he decided not to sent it to review and apologized for the long delay because he was traveling. This shows utter disregard to authors' time and I do not recommend submitting papers to this journal, despite its impact factor.
Scientific Reports 7.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall it was a productive revision process. Revision took the apropriate time and comments were constructive. What we did not like about the revision process was Quality Check process. While quality check and copyright related comments from editorial team was meaningfull and helpfull, every time we adressed the manuscript quality related issue it took over a week, for manuscript to be processed further sometimes to another quality related matter that took another week for editorial team to review. It is understndable however, giving the high volume of publications Sci Rep is dealing with. We have never recived the reviewers responce after we sumitted revised manuscript just outright acceptance from the editor, even though from the manuscript status page we knew that manuscript went throug another peer review cycle.
PLoS ONE 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: One of the three reviews seemed hypercritical.
Scientific Reports 4.4
weeks
20.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The journal has the usual peer review process however provided reviews are superficial relative to how long they take to get provided.
Journal of the American Chemical Society 9.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Frontiers in Psychology 52.6
weeks
61.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: The Manuscript is under review since one year. I sent further reviewer suggestions but the journal is not able to handle it.
Journal of Bisexuality 26.9
weeks
26.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After 7 months, the paper was rejected with no real feedback on quality. I sent several emails after 3 months with no response.
International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 17.4
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were a bit harsh but fair. The editorial process was terribly long and frustrating.
Animal Conservation 15.7
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Remarks of one of the reviewers indicated that he was not familiar with the statistical method used in the manuscript (information-theoretic approach). Nevertheless, the reviewer criticised the statistical analysis and even made an incorrect statement about one aspect of it (interpretation of the odds ratio). Two editors, who rated the manuscript, did not dismiss the obviously untrue comments on the statistics and the manuscript was rejected. There were other reasons for rejection, too, and I do accept them, but the statistical issues should not have been mentioned among them and/or perhaps a third review could have been invited.
Computational Thermal Sciences 43.4
weeks
43.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
British Journal of Sports Medicine 6.7
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the review for this manuscript was of a high quality with the reviewer even going to the detail of matching protocol procedures to the final manuscripts methods to ensure the quality of the submission was high.
Scientific Reports 0.6
weeks
0.6
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The paper was transferred from another NPG journal where it was rejected after review and the reviewers transferred with it. The deputy editor personally handled the transfer, was responsive, and accepted the manuscript after reading the revised copy and the responses to reviewers without sending it out for further review. It was a seamless transfer and we're happy with the process at SR.
Pain 10.3
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
River Research and Applications 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted