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
Climatic Change n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Transparent, fast and comprehensible decision. Would definitely submit there again.
Nature Plants 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Paper was sent to three reviewers. The first, gave a very detailed negative feedback, the second a general and very positive one and the third reviewer, although positive, did obviously not understand the paper. Comprehensible decision, would submit there again.
Ecology 11.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Nature Geoscience n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Schizophrenia Research n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nano Letters n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour Drawn back before first editorial decision after 5 days Drawn back
Journal of Materials Chemistry n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Analyst 1.3
weeks
1.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Note that this was an invited critical review, so this may have been factored in by the editorial staff to expedite publication.
Biomedical Optics Express 7.0
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Scientific Reports 6.6
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Methods n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports 4.9
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process overall was quick and helpful, and led to an improved paper.
mBio n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Schizophrenia Bulletin n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Geologica Carpathica 15.4
weeks
28.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The work on the manuscript by the editors of GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA was excellent. A little long seemed only to be waiting for reviews (but the reviews were very well done and helpful in improving the manuscript). So that the overall rating is very good.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Nanotechnology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Hydrometallurgy 16.9
weeks
22.9
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Agricultural Economics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor contacted an associate editor and we received a very brief and tough response mostly criticizing methodological issues. The editors might reformulate their aims & scope as several papers on a very similar topic using a very similar methodology were published afterwards. The only major difference was that these case studies were located in developing countries.
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Catalysis Science and Technology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
The International Journal of Press/Politics 10.8
weeks
10.8
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The topic was not a fit for the journal, but the paper was taken under review anyhow.
British Journal of Political Science n/a n/a 30.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was rejected because its topic did not fit the journal. This was a bit strange as I had reviewed a paper for the journal on the exact same topic.
West European Politics 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: My paper was rejected after three R&R recommendations while a very poor paper that I reviewed for this journal was accepted without any of my major concerns addressed.

When I notified the editors about this strange decision, they never responded. They simply sent me an invite to review another paper for them...

As a reviewer, the process is very opaque as you cannot see what other reviewers have advised.
Representation 41.4
weeks
41.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Waited almost nine months, yet I got only one review. The comments from this reviewer were, however, good and constructive .
Journal of Business Ethics 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Condor 30.4
weeks
32.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: After dropping the ball for seven months the paper came back with good reviews and was accepted after revision. EiC was apologetic about review period but had great comments to improve paper.
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 21.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: it take a lot of time
Cytometry, Part A 9.0
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 5.4
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was relatively swift. The reviewers were fair. The editor handled the paper from first submission to its appearance online very well and communicated with us regularly and clearly.
Conservation Genetics 20.9
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: Considering this was a very straight forward phylogeographic study, it did not require such a long initial time in review. Neither reviewer seemed to be very well informed about basic population genetic concepts. In particular, the lengthy response necessary for the second reviewer was essentially an explanation of simple concepts (isolation by distance, interpretation of structure plots etc). Needless to say this type of review is a waste of time for authors and not a word was changed in the paper.
Conservation Genetics 10.9
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Considering that the paper was a very simple study, the review process was far too long. The reviews did not improve the paper in this case and there was quite a lot of messing around (e.g. we were asked why we hadn't sent back the corrected proofs when we had actually never received these and also we hadn't even heard back whether our final changes/revision were okay). We were asked right at the end to add a few lines in the materials and methods - (post review - so I'm not sure where this came from) but in the end these lines were not included at all.