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 Environmental Psychology n/a n/a 29.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oikos n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-Aided Engineering 6.3
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is very timely. The overall feedback was good. The best part is double blind review process, which is not there in many reputed journals. Sometimes papers are rejected/ accepted due to bias towards authors in single blind process.
Science n/a n/a 23.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 4.4
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Review rounds were speedy which I appreciate. Some reviewers were very good and others were not. The second round was a bit of a waste of time because they brought up new issues that were not raised the first time and were not related to the revisions, so that was irritating.
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 3.6
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The overall review process was fast. I thank the editor and editorial team for their prompt work despite the difficult circumstances.
Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 9.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: As participants in a workshop's shared task, we were specifically solicited to submit a journal article for a special issue arranged by the workshop organizers. An earlier version of our paper had therefore already undergone a round of peer reviews for publication in the workshop proceedings. The submission requirements for the journal did not give too much extra space for new material, which probably explains why the reviews we got were fairly positive and did not identify too many areas for improvement. The editors asked us to prepare a camera-ready submission incorporating the reviewers' suggestions (or at least, those that were practical), along with a response to the reviews, but this camera-ready submission was published without going through another round of reviews.
Computers in Human Behavior n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process was very fast. The editor also suggested another journal to submit our article. I am very happy with the quick response and the editor's answer.
Journal of Business Research 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Journal of Animal Ecology n/a n/a 47.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The time to a desk reject was quite long, however, it was during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic which may have delayed everything. The Associate Editor read my paper carefully and gave a careful explanation of the rejection. I was told approximately 85% of papers are rejected.
Annals of Biomedical Engineering n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
SAGE Open 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: They are very unprofessional. After 8 months of revising paper we received email that they can't find reviewers. So, our overall experience is to avoid this journal.
EMBO Reports n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review was fast. But that was about it.
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 23.1
weeks
23.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: While many of the reviewers comments were fair some were fairly naive. One reviewer complained about how recent the references used were but due to the nature of the paper this was a necessity. Overall the biggest issue with the journal was the time taken for initial reviews to come back. I appreciate this was initially over the holiday season but almost 6 months to hear anything back is far too long.
Medical Education n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: very quick editorial turn around. despite not being what we had hoped for, we appreciated the efficient handling
Computers in Biology and Medicine n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript should be refined for English grammatical structure and phraseology. The manuscript should be polished by an English linguist or language service (note in marked-up copy text where changes are made). Details of author-pays services can be found, for example, at: http://nativeenglishedit.com/
Systèmes d'Information et Management 14.3
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: This review was for a special issue, so the peer review schedule was compressed. The reviews were received within three months of the special issue deadline, which I consider timely. There were three reviews and the reviewers were obviously knowledeable about the domain. Even though the submission was rejected, the reasons for rejection were clearly motivated based on the reviewers' specific comments. Even though they recommended rejection, the reviewers gave constructive feedback that gives concrete directions for going forward. Although not the desired outcome, an overall respectable review process.
Journal of Contemporary China 20.7
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were not particularly helpful (note: it might be due to sheer chance in reviewer selection this one time, and not reflecting the general quality of reviewers for this journal). The positive review was basically a single paragraph to the effect of "this is a great paper worth publishing". The negative review criticized my draft for presumably failing to address alternative theories x, y, z, all of which I had actually discussed and explicitly refuted in the draft. Luckily the editor was quite reasonable, giving me an opportunity to respond to the negative review, and accepted the draft upon relatively minor revisions.
Science Advances 15.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We got such a reply" Unfortunately, the reviewer comments are not positive enough to support publication of the paper in Science Advances. Although we recognize that you might be able address many of the criticisms noted in the reviews, the overall nature of the comments is such that we believe that the manuscript would not make the final cut for publication. We are therefore letting you know that we are rejecting the manuscript and hope that, nonetheless, you find the review comments helpful in preparing your work for submission to another journal". Regrettably, we found that comments are superficial, lack a lot of deep scientific understanding with bias. Therefore, we criticized that decision of rejection based on the apparent bias in the sole reviewer's comments, starting even from a wrong understating of the title to the end of his comments. The comments refer to the inexperience of the reviewer to the core of the topic. We have anxious regarding that high ranking journal with depending on only one reviewer who is not an expert on the submitted research field. We also complained from the long-editorial time, negligence of many inquire emails, un-updating the tracking system. Hereafter, the appeal rejected. We are so sad for wasting our time.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 16.6
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Marine Systems 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Applied Geophysics 20.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Microwave and Optical Technology Letters 18.1
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: No technical comments were given by the worthy reviewers. They just simply say 'No novelty in your work is seen'.
International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Only single comment by the Reviewer-1 was given which is: "Please edit Table 2 and 3. ". However, Reviewer-2 said, "Main contributions of the paper is not clearly addressed throughout the paper".

The associate editor said, "The contribution of this work is only marginal with respect to other previously published works. " and rejected the paper.
Electronics Letters 2.4
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Simply write: "I am afraid that the decision has been not to publish it in Electronics Letters." without reviewing it.
Journal of Geophysical Research 19.0
weeks
33.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
New Phytologist n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Business and Society n/a n/a 34.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Comments from the editor is that the research topic is interesting but the research objectives of the papers need to be redeveloped. The editor advises to redevelop and resubmit the paper. We are given 6-12 months to resubmit
Journal of Business Research 54.1
weeks
54.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The submission was to a special issue. The guest editor commented that they have received a lot of submissions, and they can only choose the few best papers.
ACS Materials Letters 6.1
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 0.1
weeks
0.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was sent out to 3 external reviewers, 1 of the reviewers gave very long and detailed comments of around 15 pages. Though that particular reviewer is not familiar with my adopted methodology, but overall the reviewers are doing good jobs and try to provide feedback on how to improve my paper. Though rejected, the EIC recommend to address to the comments and resubmit
Journal of Hypertension 7.1
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
IEEE Access 3.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Bioorganic Chemistry 0.1
weeks
0.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
BMC Infectious Diseases 25.6
weeks
33.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good peer review and easy handling and communication by the editors. Quick publication after the point of acceptance. Seemed to take a long time before the first round of peer review was received.
Tetrahedron Letters 4.3
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Submitted to the 'Social Epidemiology' section of the journal. Fast response was appreciated as they did not waste much of my time.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 23.9
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2.4
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Journal of Endocrinology n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)