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
Science Advances Drawn back before first editorial decision after 40 days Drawn back
Motivation: The manuscript was inadequately handled by the editors. After 40 days of "editorial handling", the manuscript was still "under evaluation". Several messages were sent to the journal to which no reasonable/credible answers were provided. We, the authors, have been passed between two journal managers and they provided inadequate responses. We were even asked to keep reminding them about the delays!
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrew the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work, but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
Having this experience, I might not be so keen to send manuscripts to this journal in the future.
American Journal of Gastroenterology 7.0
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewer and editor comments helped improve the paper. Duration of review was reasonable.
Hepatology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Investigative Dermatology 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: very opaque editorial process. never heard that it went out for review. reviews were bare minimum feedback.
Hispanic Studies Review 62.6
weeks
62.6
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Journal of Aging and Social Policy 17.0
weeks
27.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very long process especially for the first review round
Clinical Drug Investigation n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 21.1
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 66.6
weeks
66.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis: CATH 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
IEEE Access n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Don't waste your time for the IEEE Access!! It was the worst submission experience in my 7-years career.
We have submitted paper to the Special Section about machine learning. The title of our paper was a perfect match for the scope listed in call for papers. Imagine our surprise when we have received the "out of scope" reject.
We have asked for an explanation, and after a month they have repeated that the paper is "out of scope". We have then asked for an explanation once more, and after a week they have replied that the reject decision is reverted (without explaining anything) and the paper will be considered (reviewed).
After 3-weeks we have received the decision - reject without possibility to resubmit. There were two reviews. One quite constructive and merit (and suggesting the resubmission). The second one, on the other hand, was completely incorrect: the reviewer said that only binary classification was performed, while we have done multi-class classification (10 experiments) and binary classification (2 experiments). Furthermore, the reviewer said data set with more than 5k observations should be used, meanwhile we have used 8 data set with far more than 5k observations! There were 3-4 more comments like this (completely wrong or very general).
Journal of Biblical Literature 36.6
weeks
36.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Motivation: Good review process. It took very long, but this was already indicated in the Instructions for Authors.
Frontiers in Marine Science 4.3
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Hebrew Studies 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick and good review process which found the best qualified reviewer for my article.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 28.4
weeks
28.4
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Applied Materials Today n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Energy Storage 14.6
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology 17.1
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Leadership n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor provided timely, highly engaged, and very constructive comments to help develop our paper before welcoming a second attempt at submission.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering 48.0
weeks
48.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Research on Aging 11.1
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: After 7 weeks under review, the online portal stated 'Awaiting Final Decision' but a day later it was sent back out to more reviewer(s). I felt that there was little need for 4 reviewers. The inclusion of a fourth reviewer did not help improve the manuscript substantially and it only slowed down the review process. Three reviewers would have been plenty. Moreover, at least two of the reviewers did not seem to read the manuscript thoroughly as they asked questions that were clearly addressed in the original manuscript.
Vetus Testamentum 3.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick and helpful reviewing process.
Leadership 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The comments from reviewers were detailed, constructive, and very thoughtful. The reviewers all showed great interest in the topic and seemed invested in improving the paper. They provided tips for various theoretical perspectives on the paper's topic and also gave recommendations of helpful references that all served to guide us on how the paper can be improved for future submission attempts.
JCI insight 4.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Pediatric Obesity n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected even though the journal was calling for papers for a special issue on the manuscript topic.
The Economic and Labour Relations Review 22.0
weeks
58.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor of the journal clearly searches for quality articles. Although the paper improved thanks to the involvement of the editor, the process took too long.
CoDesign n/a n/a 65.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Applied Materials Today n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Technology in Society 37.3
weeks
37.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer 1 recommended approval but the comments were poor, Reviewer 2 recommended rejection but his comments were also poor. The editor recognized that a third review should be obtained, but told us that this could take many more months, so they chose to reject the article.
ACS Materials Letters n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking 33.0
weeks
41.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the process of review was decent, but not excellent. The first reviews took very long to arrive. When they did arrive, two of the reviewers made very minor comments about the paper. Only one of the reviewers commented in detail, which we were very happy to listen to. Ultimately, the paper was accepted without too much difficulty.
Journal for Nature Conservation 9.0
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial team had a professional and honest attitude. Judging by their reviews, the selected reviewers were well versed in the field of submitted research and provided quality comments and suggestions for improvement. Technical support was quick to respond and effective. Overall, the publishing process was a pleasant experience.
IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor did talk to two associate editors, and they concluded that "...the manuscript has a greater emphasis on chemistry than typical papers in IEEE UFFC."
European Journal of Teacher Education 50.4
weeks
50.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Ultrasonics n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process was amazingly quick, and they suggested an article transfer to Ultrasonics Sonochemistry. However, I feel it was not completely fair because the aims and scope of Ultrasonics was listed as covering all aspects of ultrasonics - are chemically related papers automatically out-of-scope? If so, that fact was never publicized on the journal website.
Developmental Psychobiology 5.7
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The comments were reasonable and useful
Egyptian Heart Journal 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Family Psychology n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Applied Biology and Biotechnology 8.0
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Biodiversity and Aquatic Research: An International Journal 33.9
weeks
37.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted