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
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.
Children and Society Drawn back before first editorial decision after 30 days Drawn back
Physical Review Materials 4.3
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
ACS Nano 4.1
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Science Advances 7.3
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Chemical Physics 4.7
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Physical Review Letters 8.6
weeks
20.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2.1
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Research Policy n/a n/a 35.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Associate editor considered the topic interesting enough but recommended immediate rejection based on what they thought were (quite secondary) issues in the analyses. This is the type of feedback I expect to receive from reviewers and be given the chance to respond — not the type of feedback that should justify desk rejection, in my view.
Journal of Business Venturing n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 9.0
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough reviews that helped us clarify the message. Smooth process as usual with JEMS.
Work, Employment and Society n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Marketing 27.4
weeks
47.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Drawn back
Scientia Iranica 23.0
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: very long review process!
Journal of Intellectual Capital 8.7
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' report was excellent. They identified the shortcoming very thoroughly.
East European Journal of Psycholinguistics (Shìdnoêvropejsʹkij žurnal psiholìngvìstiki) 3.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Motivation: The reviews came after only three weeks. However, one reviewer was clearly not a reliable expert on anything similar to the topic we investigated and their comments were unreasonable. For example, they claimed that our manuscript was missing the Discussion section (when it was not) and that we misunderstood the main object of our research, which we have been researching for several years prior to submission... The second reviewer's comments were very tepid. We felt we could not adequately address the comments and that the manuscript would not considerably improve.
International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We got an immediate desk-reject. The editor has a checklist of reasons that would cause immediate rejection. The applicable one in our case was that the journal does not publish studies that use convenience sampling (which we use in our paper).

There was no scientific argument for rejecting the paper on that ground (our study did not have a specific segment and we demonstrated equality in key composition in the experimental treatments). It was either a pure 'matter of principle' or the editor just didn't like the paper and used this as an excuse.

At any rate, at least they didn't sit on the paper for long and we could quickly resubmit somewhere else.