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
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 11.1
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Geologica Carpathica 10.0
weeks
20.1
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Motivation: Our manuscript had several errors or shortcomings that had to be removed, there is no doubt about it. However, nor did I or my co-authors were satisfied with the manners of the handling editor and some reviewers in this case. We later sent a manuscript into another journal where it was finally published.
Frontiers in Plant Science 7.0
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process started 12 days after I submited.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 14.3
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Biological Psychology 4.4
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Aggressive Behavior n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 39.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Plos ONE review process has been the worst review process of any journal I've publish in to date. The manuscript was submitted in August, after queries, the journal staff assured that the manuscript was going out for peer review, then after a month and a half, the manuscript was rejected within a day of being viewed by a subject editor. The reasons for rejection were demonstrably false statements about the manuscript. An appeal was submitted and accepted, and the manuscript was resubmitted November 21, 2017. Now it is February 13, 2018, and "Editor Invited" has been the status for over two months.
PLoS Computational Biology 5.0
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Social Theory and Health 12.0
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I would suggest the the journals be required to inform authors when there is a change in the administrative system as that usually indicates there will be a delay
Health and Place 10.1
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: My manuscript was reviewed with great care, the reviewers' comments helped to sharpen my messages and absolutely improved it's quality. Correspondence with the journal was easy, very accessible.
AIDS and Behavior 9.0
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Although it took a bit longer to receive reviews back than I hoped the comments were generally helpful and improved the manuscript.
Gerontologist 9.3
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I am very pleased with the processing of this manuscript. The reviewers comments were thoughtful and helped to improve the final accepted manuscript.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 19.1
weeks
25.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was overall very good. Reviewers' comments were very insightful and helped to significantly improve the final version of the article. However, I received the reviews only after more than 4 months.
Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Science n/a n/a 29.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: In the cover letter we suggested a number of possible editors listed on the website, but the manuscript was sent to someone outside of our field of study (and not on our list in the cover letter). Given the importance of the manuscript and the scientific discovery we thought it would still be evaluated as an important paper, even by a scientist who is not an expert in this field of science. We checked the daily the submission system online, and saw that the manuscript bounced between two different editors outside of our field of study over the 4-weeks it was evaluated. From the rejection email we received it was clear that the editor had not added any comments, and there was no reason given for the rejection (Given the statements made in the form email it was clear it had not been written by a human). It took 4 weeks to receive the form rejection letter from the journal! We will resubmit the manuscript elsewhere given how important this discovery is. Hope this helps fellow scientists looking to submit to Science.
Aging and Mental Health 10.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: My manuscript used a qualitative methodology that, while well tested and reported on in previous literature, is not well understood outside of experts in the field. Although some qualitative research has been accepted to this journal it was clear that the reviewers were not well versed in qualitative research. Some comments by the reviewers were clearly hastily written--for example one reviewer objected to my using names for fear of disclosing PHI while the manuscript clearly stated pseudonyms were given.

Despite all of this I was impressed with how quickly the editor sent the paper out for review. Had this been a quantitative study it may have received fairer reviews. I will consider submitting to this journal in the future.
Expert Systems 9.6
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Construction and Building Materials 13.0
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 6.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 9.4
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 8.6
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Cast Metals Research 64.0
weeks
71.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Advances in Space Research 12.3
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Acta Astronautica 38.7
weeks
38.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Acta Astronautica 10.4
weeks
19.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Latin American Research Review n/a n/a 245.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process was very slow. The communication with the editorial board was inefficient. There was a change in the board, maybe the new team will bring positive changes for the journal.
Sustainability 3.6
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick peer review process
Local Environment 6.4
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick review process with constructive and detailed comments.
Scientific Reports 8.1
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I found the comments made by the reviewers helpful and it must be said that it improved my manuscript. However, I found the process time a bit long.
European Journal of Personality 6.1
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Vision Research 27.9
weeks
28.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were excellent. However, the first review round was extremely long, especially for a minor revision.
Nature Communications 5.6
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: There are both advantages and disadvantages to Nat Comms. Upon initial submission, the editor requested that we revise and resubmit. This took three months, and resulted in a much better paper. We then went through two further review rounds, so that it was finally about 8 months before the manuscript was accepted. It then took another two months before publication, which is bizarre given that we submitted publication-ready latex proofs, and this is an online journal. We received good feedback from the reviewers, which ultimately resulted in a much better paper (!), but we agree with other authors, that the process takes far too long. Our eProofs were sent back to us with far too many simple errors to justify the GBP 3,700.00 (tax included) publication fee. Shocking, and makes you wonder how much the Nature management are profiting, at the expense of the copyediting firm in Bangladesh, who actually do the hard work of the production.

If we have one recommendation for the Nat Comms team it is to stop claiming that this is a "rapid communication" type journal. Why claim rapid turnover (one month I think), when the actual review process takes much longer? Claiming it is once month from the point of acceptance to the point of publication is trying to make it look much more rapid than it is.

Still, an excellent journal, and supportive of junior academics.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7.6
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewer comments helped improving the manuscript. Editor was fair and balanced.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: + The main difficulty was to find reviewers
+ Once the first revision process came, the subsequent revisions were fine
+ The final result was useful to ameliorate our manuscript
Scientific Reports 25.4
weeks
25.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: It took about two weeks for the editor to receive the first review, Five months later I enquired about the reason for the lack of progress. The reply was that the editor was still trying to obtain another review. One month after that the editor made a revise and resubmit decision based on the somewhat glowing review of Reviewer 1.Revised and resubmitted the next day and was accepted the day after that.
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Immediately accepted after 0.9 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: This time around, ZPE reviewed my article quickly and, though the review process was internal, the reviewer informed us he consulted the article's content with another authority in the subject area, who was one of the main conversation partners of the article's argument. That's professional and encouraging.
Platelets 10.9
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Biomedicines 2.0
weeks
2.6
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 4.7
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Communications n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)