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
Crop and Pasture Science 10.6
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was time-consuming, taking 14 months from initial submission to publication. One reviewer suggested including an extensive area of literature that was not covered in the initial submission. This took 6 months amidst other responsibilities, and I wanted to do a thorough job of covering making these changes to facilitate acceptance. This reviewer was happy with these changes, but the second reviewer was unavailable and the paper went to a third reviewer who had other (but less extensive) suggested changes. While the end product is much better than the initial submission, there is a diminishing-returns relationship between time spent on a paper and its quality. Some journals seem happy with publishing papers that are 90% perfect, while Crop and Pasture Science and the reviewers it chooses seem to require 99% perfection. This is great for their readers, but their high bar may mean that some good results don't get published.
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 2.6
weeks
2.6
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Research and Reports in Urology 4.0
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The duration of the review process for this journal was satisfactory and the staff made it a point to update all authors at the soonest possible time. The peer review inputs were generally favorable and agreeable; however, one of the reviewers may have likely attempted to "citation hack" which we respectfully declined.
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health 6.0
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The second review round was due to the editor's own comments (the editor had already asked for changes during the first review round, which we addressed in full) despite both external reviewers suggesting only minor changes during the first round (which we addressed in full).
Annals of Botany 9.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Health Informatics Journal 16.9
weeks
29.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' reports content were good and useful, but the overall process took a very long time. We even had an additional round of reviews because the submission system did not send our "response to reviewers" document to the reviewers.
NILES journal for Geriatric and Gerontology 10.1
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Primary Care Diabetes 10.9
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 10.8
weeks
13.8
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
NILES journal for Geriatric and Gerontology 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
New Phytologist 4.9
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Foods 2.0
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The paper was accepted but the experience was not great. The paper went through 3 rounds of revision in total. After the first round of revision, two out of three reviewers reccomended acceptance, whereas a single unsympathethic reviewer was still not satisfied about the extend of the revision (which is fair enough of course). In such situations one would normally expect editor to either go with the majority and accept the paper, or enlist an additional reviewer, but in any case give the authors the opportunity to further amend the paper. Instead they rejected it stating we didn't adddress this reviewer's comments (which wasn't true but no specific comments on this were provided, even after inquiry) but, at the same time, invited us to address them and resubmit it as a new paper. The only sensible explanation I could think of is they bring down submission-to-publication times (which of course will be nominally shorter if one considers every revision round as a new paper) by doing that. So that was pretty awkward, but we eventually did what they asked and resubmit as a new paper to avoid having to start from scratch with a different journal. The "new" paper was eventually accepted after one more round of revisions.
The really annoying part of the whole process was that all communication went through an obviously clueless editorial assistant who seemed only focused on getting us to resubmit as fast as possible, rather than allowing us proper time to address the reviewer's comments. All resubmission deadlines they gave were extremely short (1 or 2 weeks), which was not consistent with the amount of revision requested by the reviewers. We generally respected the deadlines, but nonetheless they kept spamming us every 2-3 days, also during weekends, asking about the status of our paper (all authors mind you, not just the corresponding one) and reminding us to resubmit the paper as fast as possible.
All in all a bad experience, I won't submit there again.
Ceramics International 3.1
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: One of the fastest journal in its field. There was one reviewer who addressed the missing points of the paper very clearly and asked me to improve the quality by further discussion. Once I followed the recommendations and resubmitted the paper, it was accepted in a very short time.
BioData Mining 13.4
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very good review system and very interesting reports from the reviewers. The editor also made some requests with which we did not agree; we explained our reasons and he was okay with them. A good experience.
International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology 15.2
weeks
15.2
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Postdigital Science and Education 2.0
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Infection and Drug Resistance 3.4
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Critique of our manuscript was thorough, and helped in improving it for submission to other journals.
Journal of Management Education 8.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The journal kept me up to date with the review process; the feedback was extensive and helpful. I found the journal to be supportive and helpful throughout the process.
Molecular Ecology 19.4
weeks
27.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Super long reviewing process
European Journal of Applied Physiology 11.6
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was adamant that the ideas presented were of 'no physiological relevance' and yet did not give concrete suggestions on how to improve the manuscript due to what we believe is an internal bias. This is the rudest and most condescending review I have ever received, and it was clear, to me, that the reviewer did not understand the premise of the experiment, nor read the manuscript in its entirety.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health 10.4
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Reproductive Sciences 4.6
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast & fair review. It took longer than expected to resubmit revisions due to Covid-19 lockdowns. I highly recommend submitting to this journal. Even proofs were processed unexpectedly fast.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 5.4
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reasonable and helpful reviews. However, far from a perfect experience due slow decisions by the handling editor (it took a month to accept the final resubmitted manuscript after a minor revision), and it took another month to have the paper appear online, following a flippant and unresponsive process of typesetting by Elsevier.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers' comments are quite constructive. None of these reviewers pointed out any fatal mistakes, and the editor agreed the mentioned issues are addressable. However, the editor still rejected my paper. It was very disappointing. It may be partially related to their existing good ranking, which makes the editors picky on these borderline submissions.
Public Administration Review 47.7
weeks
47.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 14.6
weeks
31.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was constructive, courteous, and overall adequate. The editor responded quickly to inquiries regarding issues with submission system. The reviews and editors acted in a timely and helpful manner that improved the quality of the manuscript. Overall a rewarding a experience - that I can recommend.
Physics of Plasmas 6.5
weeks
10.8
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Australian Journal of Public Administration 4.0
weeks
6.5
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This journal can turn around articles v. quickly. The editor is engaged in the process. I have published a few articles in this and have always been impressed by its commitment to doing a good job. Reviewers are mostly (not always) constructive and helpful. Articles I have published here have a solid citation outcome, often better than ones I have published in ostensibly better ranked UK or US journals.
Climate and Development 14.3
weeks
29.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The initial review process was poorly handled with one clearly inappropriate review and an editor who did not pass our revisions on to the reviewers for two months. Upon appealing the decision, the appeal was handled promptly.
Journal of the Electrochemical Society 14.9
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Elife 0.7
weeks
2.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: It was a pretty fast and transparent process. The review report was of good quality and reviewers put the effort into reading and reviewing the paper.
Journal of Food Quality n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was desk-rejected by the editor. The motivation given was that the journal does not accept paper exclusively based on qualitative data (which was the case).
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I think it is record-breaking. They rejected my manuscript within 5 mins. I have some reservation about their reasons about the manuscript not fitting their scope (For my situation, it can be a religious talk).

At least they made it quick and did not waste the time of authors, which should be learnt by many EIC.
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cities n/a n/a 27.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cities n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Medicine n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Elife n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
eBioMedicine n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick rejection, though unsure of the reasoning.