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
American Journal of Plant Sciences 1.0
weeks
1.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Peer review at this journal was a joke. It consisted of six numbered, vague statements: about the title, not using first person narrative, and other comments completely outside the scope of the paper. Luckily, the paper had received a lot of helpful feedback prior to publishing with AJPS. Sadly I think we realized too late this journal is probably predatory (see the publisher Scientific Research Publishing, which routinely changes domains). Fee is $999.
Polymer 7.3
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I think it is very important to get the right reviewers!
Journal of Neural Engineering 4.0
weeks
6.5
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers suggested minor revisions that helped clarify the manuscript. Overall, a very good experience.
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2.4
weeks
2.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quick and painless.
Reviewer's comments were fair and very helpful.
Science of the Total Environment 6.1
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick turnaround from editor. We felt time to resubmit was quite short given author availability so soon after the festive period but we managed this OK.

Reviewer comments were in general helpful and did improve the article. Two reviewers had feedback that was genuinely helpful while the third review was mainly of the form of "use this word because I don't like that word" which is rather subjective and necessitated a lot of quite unproductive work to address.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 12.9
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The formatting requirements for the journal are somewhat onerous, and would make me hesitate before submitting there again (e.g. strict limitations on number of figures with no option for supplementary materials, unusual format for figures, integrated results/discussion sections). However, the review process was relatively speedy and requests from the editors were reasonable. The editors were diplomatic about reviewer comments deemed unnecessary or irrelevant.
Journal of Politics 15.2
weeks
20.2
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Advances in Data Analysis and Classification n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Response time was great considering the need to optimize researchers time. Also the comment was specific stating that the manuscript topic was outside the scope of the Journal.
Information Sciences n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast review by the editorial team and the communication was great.
Cancer Gene Therapy 3.3
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The peer-review process was very rapid. we received a minor revision and upon on resubmitting, we received acceptance after 5 days.
Media, Culture and Society 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Rather quick process but review reports lacking.
ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering 4.7
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Atmospheric Environment n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neurobiology of Disease 23.0
weeks
33.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The time of the overall management of the article was extremely long.
Judgment and Decision Making n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature n/a n/a 31.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript stayed 30 days under evaluation and it was rejected since the topic was not broad enough to the journal. In the rejection, they mentioned that their contacted Nature medicine editors and they suggested the transference to that journal.
Carbohydrate Polymers 9.0
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 6.6
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Cell Reports n/a n/a 39.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although we submitted right before the New year holidays, I would not have expected such a long waiting time before an editorial rejection with a response as general as the following: "The findings are interesting and will be of interest and use to your field. However, for the paper to be a strong candidate for the very broad readership of Cell Reports there would need to be a greater conceptual advance over previous work, with clear new biological insight."
Even this response was yielded after a follow-up email directly to the editor!
Surface and Coatings Technology 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Physical Chemistry, B 3.1
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 9.3
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Science 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The overall experience was quick and painless. The editor felt that our work was interesting but too many experiments would have been required to answer to the reviewers comments. We regret the outright rejection and the impossibility to answer to the reviewers criticisms as most of them could have been addressed through a detailed response.
Journal of Materials Chemistry 13.0
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: For the first review, the editor sent our article to two reviewers. One of the reviewers recommended minor revision while another reviewer recommended reject. then, the editor sent our article to the third reviewer for final recommendation. The third reviewer requested major revisions. After resubmitting, we received a minor revision and then article was accepted.
Electoral Studies 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Two positive reviews (one major R&R and one minor R&R). Editor still rejected paper with one sentence justification.
Editor apparently did not like the manuscript. A desk reject would have saved time for all involved parties...
IET Image Processing 9.3
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Perfect Journal for quality review and rapid turn around time. My two papers have got accepted and published online within 6 months from the date of first submission.
ACS Nano 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Of the two, one reviewer failed to carry out the task effectively. The comments made it clear that the reviewer had not read the Manuscript/Supporting Information, yet the reviewer opted for rejection of the manuscript. The comments questioned many aspects of the manuscript which were in fact, explained to a great extent in the main paper and supporting information.
European Journal of Marketing n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor desk-rejected our paper saying it was not a good fit for the journal, with no additional feedback. I sent a polite inquiry requesting some quick feedback as to why that was the case but to no avail. At least they didn't take the long to reject the paper.
Macromolecules 5.4
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers had fairly good knowledge about the field and raised comments that helped to improve the manuscript.
International Journal of Finance and Economics n/a n/a 67.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
BioMed Research International 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial board was helpful during the submission process.
Quality of review was outstanding.
It takes time for acceptance
Evolution Letters 8.9
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: We had two reviewers, one of which was expert in the field and required several reanalysis, while another was a bit superficial but pointed out simple mistakes and unclear texts in the manuscript. Both reviewers were truly helpful for us to improve our manuscript.
Nanoscale n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Way too long for immediate rejection
Diabetologia n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Multisensory Research 10.3
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Genetics n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejected because it did not fit the scope of the journal.
Physiotherapy n/a n/a 33.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Diabetes Care 4.4
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Environmental Science and Technology 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were generally very helpful and resulted in improvements to the manuscript.
Scientific Reports 9.4
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The only negative experience is that it took really a long time for each round of reviews. I did not have any problems with the quality check, it was very fast, within 1 day. Only when I submitted the paper for the third time, for some reason the quality check took three days (maybe because it was around Christmas). I definitely advise to just follow the rules regarding the manuscript preparation and take into account that quality check may take time.
My best experience about this Journal is with the reviewers. While one of them was quite brief, and did not ask for many changes, the other one was really incredible. Despite asking really a lot of stuff to be done, his/her reviews were so helpful, incredibly insightful, and I am truly sorry that I may never found out who that reviewer was. That reviewer incredibly influenced the quality of the paper. I only wish all the reviewers could be so professional and take time to review the manuscripts in such a thorough way.