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
PLoS ONE 8.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Estudos Internacionais 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Organometallic Chemistry 5.6
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: One of the reviewers was a competitor and with the irrelevant to the article comments he strongly recommended reject. The editor should have sent the article to a third reviewer and should have understand that the review is biased based. The other review was really low quality. Nothing to the point.
Canadian Acoustics 24.3
weeks
28.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 3.6
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Affective Disorders 9.4
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: While the end result was a rejection, the review process itself yielded three helpful reviews and did not take too long.
Journal of Happiness Studies 34.7
weeks
40.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor in chief and the associate editors replied to my requests when it was necessary. They are professional and very helpful. Furthermore, there was a problem concerning the proof service and after 10 minutes from my email, the editor in chief was in charge to fix the problem. I can be only grateful for her very professional support, she understood the problem with the copyediting service and she took a position about it. Besides, the associate editor manage carefully the review process and also her comments were helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. Long review process but I am very satisfied about the successful conclusion of it.
Emotion 14.6
weeks
41.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process generally took long, especially for the second revision round (5 months). In that time I contacted the peer review coordinator multiple times, and suggested additional names for reviewers to expedite the process. When reviewers were finally in, a month elapsed before the editor finally made a decision. They rejected the manuscript a year and three months after first submission, based on characteristics that were inherent to the data, and known from the start (no control group, but this was not relevant for the research question), and on an issue with potential confounding that we immediately addressed (quick rerun of analysis with covariate, no change in conclusions).
The rejection was unexpected because one (repeat) reviewer recommended minor revisions, and the other (new) reviewer's comments expressed concern, but could be addressed without much trouble. We communicated our viewpoint to the editors, but they concluded the paper could contribute too little to the field, and the lack of control group was too problematic. Barring any feelings of frustration, this conclusion seems unjustifiable: they should have screened the manuscript more attentively at the first submission, or resubmission if they felt the study design was not sound. This late change of attitude makes it seems like they did not like the change to (mostly) null findings.
Applied Intelligence 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process followed by this journal is quite quick, and the review reports are very useful to revise the paper.
International Journal of Molecular Sciences 0.9
weeks
1.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Cell Reports n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The waiting times on their website does not reflect at all the reality. Editor mentioned that the paper would need greater conceptual advance to be considered for Cell reports. They suggested transfer to iScience.
Scientific Reports 5.0
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The Editor -an established expert in the field- handled the manuscript promptly and very well, sending it to an intellectual giant in the field. The reviews were of very high quality and the comments straightforward to address.
It was a pleasure to have such a smooth and high-quality review process.

Science of the Total Environment 4.0
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: very fast review process
Knowledge-Based Systems n/a n/a 70.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Worst journal and editorial team. They rejected my manuscript after two month because they found similarity with another paper: the preprint version of the same manuscript at arxiv!!! They didn't realize this even though it was allowed in Guide For Authors.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 8.4
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took a very long time (especially after the revision). We received two reviews.

One of the reviewers didn't like our paper (possibly because we didn't cite her\him) and was abusive in their language.

In the second round the comments both reviewers raised new issues which are provably wrong.
Criminal Justice Studies 8.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Four reviewers provided useful information, but one was quite abusive. The editor separately sent the additional negative review, which appeared to have access to personally identifiable information about one of the authors. This review also provided absolutely no content-based comments. When the senior author addressed this with the editor, the response was that they were under an ethical obligation to forward all reviews even if they were derogatory and personally attacked an author. We disagree with this statement, are concerned about the blinding procedures, and believe that this journal perpetuates a negative academic environment.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 11.0
weeks
34.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Small 4.1
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
International Journal of Nursing Studies n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Helpful support during the submission process
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2.9
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 5.9
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Emerging Infectious Diseases 29.0
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: My manuscript was in peer review assignment for six months. It was rejected a few days after the submission system switched to 'In peer review'. The single review report received was dismissive and seems likely to have come from the author whose work in the journal I was criticising.
International Journal of Nursing Studies 14.1
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Decision-making time too long, helpful feedback
Journal of Advanced Nursing n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Good support during the submission process
Disability and Society n/a n/a 66.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecological Economics n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Electoral Studies 15.9
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Relatively slow review process. After the required reviews were completed, the paper landed on the editor's desk and stayed there for a month. Reviews were of OK quality, but most points regarding methodology were false as they argued in exactly the opposite direction that the paper did.
BMC Geriatrics 12.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Journal of Adolescent Health 11.3
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: After 1 month of submission the paper was initially rejected based on the use of a specific design which was not used in the paper and was factually incorrect. Upon appeal the paper was reassessed and sent out to review, and the resulting reviews (after 2 months and few days from the reassessment, 3 months and few days after initial submission ) were informative and raised legitimate concerns mainly based on the discussion of background literature and discussion of the results. However no specific reason was provided for the rejection.
Environmental Microbiology 8.9
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: Quality of reviews was averaged as one external reviewer was excellent, however, the second reviewer was very bad - their review contained errors, false information, no references to back up their comments and asked for additional information/data that was completely irrelevant to our study. The flaws in the second review were raised with the editor who refused to seek a third reviewer or investigate further. Extremely disappointed with the second reviewer and the editors handling of our manuscript. We decided to publish in another journal.
Electoral Studies 15.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers pointed out important limitations that we did not emphasize as much as they would have liked. Since we cannot address them with the data used (as discussed in the paper), it's only fair for the editor to reject the paper. The whole process was a bit slow, though...
Frontiers in Marine Science 5.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Annales de l'Institut Fourier 2.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, our decision is based on the paper’s appeal to Nature’s broad audience, rather than a judgment of its technical robustness. "
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2.9
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Sociology of Health and Illness 10.4
weeks
23.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We waited nearly 3.5 weeks for a decision on our manuscript - which is the longest I've ever experienced. It's a shame as AEE is a fantastic journal but I'd never submit there again. Would particularly advise ECR to steer clear and instead go for a journal which has shorter, and more justifiable, waiting times.
Journal of the American Chemical Society n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Typically, desk rejections in JACS happened to us quickly. In this case, it was a very unpleasant surprise to get a desk rection after nearly a month long wait without any feedback whatsoever.
Journal of Scientific Research n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was not within the scope of the Journal.