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
Environmental Politics 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Psychological Science 5.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Geologica Carpathica 9.0
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Since the beginning review process was correct; the associate editor asked three recognized experts in the field for a review. I have received 3 constructive reviews together with an evaluation and recommendations from the associate editor within 2 months. I prepared corrected version and Response letter during a month. The associate editor after receiving a positive feedback from the addressed reviewers recommended to the Editorial board acceptance of this paper. I must say that the Review process was transparent and objective.
Global Ecology and Biogeography 13.7
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were very thorough with their reviews and pointed out the methodological flaws with our study, which we were able to address. I especially liked the way the manuscript was handled by the editor.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science Advances n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Elife n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Psychological Science n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Human Resource Management 36.0
weeks
36.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: I think it is better if IJHRM keep the first review response within 6 months (at maximum) and invite more reviewers for collective viewpoints from various perspectives with the expertise in field. It is normal that a high ranking journal receives 3 or 4 reviewers for a paper. The longer review process makes us tired and costs us the opportunity to pursue publication with other journal.
Science Advances n/a n/a 32.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Dreadful submission process. Poor communication with the editorial office. The manuscript was desk-rejected more than a month after submission, precisely a day after a follow-up inquiry of the status of the submission was made.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology n/a n/a 58.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: the EIC think that the paper is too specific to business area, not general enough to social study
Journal of Business Research n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Retailing n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Research on Aging n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Green Chemistry n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Editor rejected our manuscript due to "insufficient green advancement", although in our opinion the positive impact on biodiesel plants could be very significant
Developmental Science 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Clinical Oral Investigations n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Brain and Language n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
British Journal of Nutrition 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journals of Gerontology, Series B 6.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: It was for a special covid issue. Reviewers were fast and fair. Overall good process as have been my previous experiences with this journal.
Gender and Education 14.0
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer reports were very respectful and constructive. They helped me to present my research in an improved way.
Elife 11.0
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Behaviour and Information Technology 21.6
weeks
42.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The first decision was to make major changes. According to the author, one reviewer is not too competent for certain concepts for which he asked questions, and despite the explanation by the author, he did not understand the concept. After revising the paper according to the reviewers' suggestions, one reviewer proposed major changes again while another reviewer rejected the paper. The editor decided to reject the paper. The reviews did not help to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 12.0
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was thorough and constructive, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of our initial submission. The reviewers focused on the important technical issues regarding our analyses (already a cause of disagreement among the co-investigators before manuscript submission) which prodded the study authors to a reasonable/defensible position.

The only problematic aspect is the relatively long waiting time from submission to notification of first editorial decision, taking 12 weeks which is way above the journal's reported median time for this period of ~4-5 weeks, thus downgrading my response from "5 (Excellent)" to "4."
Journalism Studies 11.4
weeks
25.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Applied Energy 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 4 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: 3 out of 4 reviewers were describing the paper being well-written and explicitly mention the novelty of the submitted work in their reviews. One of these reviewers had several questions/suggestions that could be answered and addressed by the authors.
On the other hand, the fourth reviewer just wrote two sentences that it is not well-written, no novelty at all and not publishable.
No logic behind this rejection by the editor!
Analytical Chemistry 4.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The initial reviews were part good and useful and part unrealistic. For instance, some errors in the manuscript were correctly reported. However, a large study was also requested as a revision, which would be too big even for multiple papers. A substantial part of the manuscript might not have been properly considered at all, as an obvious but substantial mistake was found by the authors in the resubmission process but was not reported by the reviewers. Perhaps the reviewers did not have expertise in this field of subject? In addition, some rather abitrary reference was requested, which did not really fit to the content of the manuscript but nevertheless included - could be bad practice, if it was a self-reference.

The second round of submission was quite disappointing, as each reviewer only wrote a single sentence for the review and the associate editor accepted these reviews. As a result, the reasoning was not very solid. In addition, some of the reviewers final recommendations to the associate editor and their additional comments did not match, i.e. "manuscript does not fit to the journals scope" vs "lack of novelty". This is surprising, as the contents of the manuscript seemed to fit to the journal in the first round of submission. Another reason was that the revisions were not made, which is in this case at least to some extent not justified, especially if this reasoning is not elaborated by the reviewer. In total, the review might involve conflicts of interest or biases, as the results belong to a hot topic research field and it is known that the associate editor tries to publish similar results.
The Economic Journal n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Sustainability n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Energy n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21.7
weeks
40.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were not unreasonable. The editors were quite prompt at work, too. The only problem was that when it was first submitted that the paper was not reviewed by anyone for several weeks, which I guess was due to the outbreak of covid-19. Otherwise, the total time from initial submission to final decision of accept would have been less than a year instead of 14 months and 3 weeks. But I still find the experience invaluable, and firmly believe that my manuscript was greatly improved thanks to the reviewers.
Gastroenterology 5.3
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This journal is extremely fast with the review process. Editor was excellent and review was tough but fair. It took us over 6 months to address all critiques but it was totally worth it, as a result, the manuscript was significantly improved. Following acceptance the paper was available online the same week. I was extremely happy with the review process, but very disappointed with the production process following the acceptance. The proofs were absolutely terrible. Production team made typos in the title, throughout text, figure quality was terrible, and communication with the production team was very difficult. It took us several attempts to get to the agreement and bring the manuscript to the acceptable publication quality.
Molecular Biology and Evolution 11.0
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: We submitted around the time of the US holidays, which slows down review in our experience. The first round of review resulted in one reviewer recommending acceptance, one recommending minor revisions, and one recommending rejection. The first decision was a major revision, with the editor distilling the reviewer comments to help us prioritize changes that would lead to acceptance. After revision it was sent out to review again and was accepted by the journal based on the satisfied reviewers' comments. Peer review greatly improved this manuscript and the reviews and the diligence of the editor were exemplary.
Nature Communications 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: We received three reviews. One was openly hostile and recommended rejection, one recommended acceptance, and the other minor revision. Editor ultimately decided the findings lacked novelty. Overall, the reviews were of very high quality, and we were able to address the comments/concerns and publish elsewhere.
Cell Reports n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Ecology and Evolution n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews I received were poorly written. One of the reviews only consisted of two meaningless sentences just saying that the proposed approach may not work in real world conditions without any further comments. However, I discussed extensively in the paper that this is a first case study to check the general feasibilty.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 32.9
weeks
34.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: After the first round, the article had a status of completion of the review for 3 months. We contacted the journal manager twice. Then we wrote to the editor-in-chief and received the article for revision in 1 hour.