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
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.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 35.7
weeks
35.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Too long process
International Journal of Oncology 5.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Political Psychology 27.1
weeks
27.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It took a very long time to receive a reply. Reviews were contradicting, and two of them of very bad quality
AIDS Education and Prevention 15.3
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Patient Education and Counseling 4.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very constructive and respectful reviewers' comments, appreciative editor's comments, quick review process
PLoS Genetics 10.3
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent editorial office, selected reviewers that knew the subject and provided positive suggestions, quick response from the editor and the journal. Overall one of the best journals I have worked with.
ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering 13.0
weeks
19.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.3
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' comments were very constructive and detailed, which helped us a lot to improve our manuscript. The editor has provided clear and direct guidance during the review process. The turnaround time was great and shorter than we'd expected.
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 35.6
weeks
54.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Small Methods 3.0
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Some reviewer questions were already answered in the manuscript. However, the inputs were still important to improve the quality of the paper and address a broader readership.
Nature Human Behavior 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: This experience with NHB's review process was one of the best experiences that I've had with a review process. It took a bit longer than I expected, but it was worth it.
Sex Roles 17.7
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Sleep Medicine 16.3
weeks
28.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Low quality reviewer comments, and difficulties to get feedback from the editor.
I would have expected a bit more given the reputation of the journal in the field.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.4
weeks
27.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process is so long!
Nature Communications n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Business Review n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There was a vague opinion about the paper. It showed they even did not read the manuscript thoroughly. we think the reason of rejection was something that we already explained in the manuscript.
Major reasons for the rejection were stated as the lack of proper theoretical basis of the paper, vague scope (what the paper was trying to say) and the unclear contribution. At the same time, the respected reviewers stated that important studies that were relevant to the field were not consulted with. For us this reasoning was a bit unclear, considering that, as mentioned in the reasons for rejection, the scope of the paper was vague.
International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 41.7
weeks
122.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer took a long time.
Bioinformatics 10.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process from Bioinformatics was awful. The reviewers' comments themselves were ok, but I only need to cut and paste the statement from the editor, it needs no other comment.

"I am sorry for the long delay in reviewing this paper. We normally do not like to make a decision with less than three reviews, but ***one of the three reviews on your paper is greatly overdue and we have not been able to get a response from the referee***. It is especially difficult on your paper, since the two reviewers we have rate the paper very differently. ***Nonetheless, we do not want to attempt to find a new reviewer so late in the process and will make the best judgment we can from the reviews we have.*** "
Particle and Particle Systems Characterization 5.9
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was very smooth and straight forward. We can recomment to publish future paper in PPSC.
Chemosphere 5.9
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was specifically asking to add more information regarding a topic which is not the focus of my manuscript. We added some information concisely and after all the modifications, the manuscript was lengthened by more than 3000 words. Still, the reviewer felt the changes were cosmetic.
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acta Carsologica Slovaca Immediately accepted after 2.9 weeks Accepted (im.)