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 Molecular Biology 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
NeuroImage 6.6
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The Review process appeared to be rather smooth. There was a small delay in the last round ("Decision in Progress" status for some days), but overall the experience was very good.
Physical Review B 8.1
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Translational Behavioral Medicine n/a n/a 49.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Genetics Selection Evolution 6.9
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: An associate editor which has reviewed the manuscript does not believe in one of the main tools quantitative genetics has developped in the last 20 years and recommends to reject the manuscript to discourage further research into this direction.

The key sentences of the associate editor's review:

"Personally, I do not believe that prediction of genetic values (additive, dominant or additive by additive) should be performed with Whole Genome Regression (WGR) methods for reasons that I discuss below. Notice that this is not to say WGR are useless, because they serve as the main tool for GWAS.... At this point, like many other papers, this research adds to the confusion on the value of WGR for predicting genetic effects that have been defined within a quantitative genetics framework.

To summarize, I recommend rejection of the manuscript to discourage further research on prediction of genetic effects with WGR... "
Elife n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Despite having a total of 7 figures and 8 supplementary figures, it was unclear for the editors what added value the paper had for the scientific knowledge. Moreover , single cell RNAseq was considered to be a standard technique in the field and was lacking in our manuscript. Most of the comments were rebuttable, however the Editor felt that pushing the paper to external review would only make us lose time as we would probably receive another rejection.
Frontiers in Microbiology 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The journal process is so fast, transparent and journal publishes high-quality papers. i have read so many papers of this journals. Normally journal took two weeks as review process but in my case, the English language was not appropriate for a reviewer, so we got the little delay in revision but after English editing, we got acceptance within 1 month. we can see the review progress in real time. I will recommend this journal for all authors.
Journal of Endocrinology 5.7
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The handling time of the manuscript could have been faster. The editorial office however is very responsive and was very helpful during the submission. When asking after a couple of weeks when we could expect the editorial decision, their promised deadlines were always correct.
ISA Transactions 9.9
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 4 0
(very bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Information Processing Letters Immediately accepted after 47.4 weeks Accepted (im.)
PLoS ONE 13.1
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Research 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Rural Studies Drawn back before first editorial decision after 348 days Drawn back
Motivation: The article was with the editor for over 12 months and nothing happened. It was not even sent to reviewers. I decided to withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere.
Nature Communications 13.0
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ceramics International 1.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Energy 20.3
weeks
20.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was long enough which is fine in this line of work and given that the Energy journal is prestigious but waiting almost 4.5 months for two review comments, each of 2-3 lines (meaningless comments: related to changing spellings, abbreviations) was discouraging with this journal. Also one reviewer doubting the link of paper to the Energy journal when the editor has deemed it fit for review astonishes me. Overall Bad experience.
Deviant Behavior n/a n/a 93.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It appears that the paper was never sent out for review before it was rejected. The time this took was several months. I found the entire process very unprofessional.
Journal of Neuroscience 9.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: After the first rejection (missing control group), the paper was completely submitted again. Three reviewer made their comments and suggestions. All critics were both, fair and very constructive. After a first revision (meanwhile two reviewer were satifed), the editors asked for a minor revision. Done. The paper was accepted.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
New Ideas in Psychology 4.7
weeks
4.7
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The comments of the reviewer are very short and careless.
Journal of Adolescent Health n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Chemical Communications 3.0
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Nice editor
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 5.1
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very pleased with the fast reviewing process. Reviewers' comments were in general helpful and to the point.
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 3.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The response was fast. I had report from 3 different reviewers. There wasn't much in terms of comments. I am glad for the fast review process.
Genetics n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The journal is on average very good (the statistical genetics section is of lower quality). The manuscript rejection because of being "out of scope" is relatively fast and you do not lose too much time waiting for the outcome.
Microbial Ecology 6.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Oncogene 0.7
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The comments and requests of the reviewers were very precise and coherent to our work and the initial submission was inside an acceptable time frame (first submission 11.04.2018; reviewers comments letter (with the feedeback arrived on 21.05.18). The waiting time after resubmission was longer (16.07.2018 - 28.09.2018), however for a good journal like Oncogene might be still in order.
PLoS ONE 14.1
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Animal Behaviour 9.3
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Measurement 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Geofluids n/a n/a 85.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: rejection due to "reviewers not found" is not a very nice message to send to the authors, so instead I suggest they should ask the author to suggest some names and then they can vet that list and see what works.
Landscape Ecology 13.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Great opinions from landscape ecologists in the know about the topic at hand.
Nature Plants n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS Medicine 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Even though our manuscript was rejected, the comment of reviewers were so helpful to improve our research. Thank you again.
Crystal Research and Technology 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After 2 weeks of submission, we have sent email to the editorial office about the review process of our manuscript, because it was showing "with journal". They told that editor is in vacation. After one month, it was showing the same status "with journal". We have requested the editorial office to cancel of our submission. Next day editor appears with some general comments from the reviewer that reviewer suggested to reject our manuscript.
Advances in Mathematics 14.1
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was exceptionally fast. The quality of review was top notch.
ACS Omega 8.7
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Plants 8.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Easy to submit and very responsive editorial team.
Chemosphere 9.3
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The journal has a good reputation and they processed my paper so fast. the review process was excellent and transparent. paper improved lot after revision. the paper got accepted within less than 2 months.