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
Chemical Communications n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The rejection was fast but ultimately fair.
Bioresource Technology n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor seemed to have rejected it without giving it a read,
European Respiratory Journal 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Good reviewing but took some time.
Language and Cognition 7.4
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Constructive and critical reviews. Helpful editorial guidance. Very rapid handling time. All in all, very good experience.
Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 12.1
weeks
31.9
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: I receive a good amount of reviews (3). However, their comments were superficial. It seems they were not experts on the field. Moreover, they did not receive my revised manuscript and it was handled by editors. They carefully revised the manuscript and provide several comments for the final version. The communication with the assistant editor was always fluid.
Science Advances n/a n/a 29.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We submitted a pair of back-to-back papers as a full story to be considered by Sci. Adv.

The first half of the story was out for review, we do not know the result as of yet (Dec 19th 2019).

The paper being rejectedhere is the second half of the story. It is of great importance (at least we think so), but was rejected without review.
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Genes, Brain and Behavior 6.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Lasers in Medical Science 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: It was my first publication, I got comments from three reviewers. After revise and resubmit I got three reports from the same reviewers and finally after revise and resubmit I got acceptance from the editor.
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Antibiotics 23.1
weeks
32.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The journal of antibiotics has an outstanding review and my manuscript was improved after revision.
Science Advances 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was very very long. First we got one reviewer and 2 month later another 2 reviewers. This came as a surprise. It was all together some what confusing and took to much time.
Journal of Contemporary China 19.5
weeks
19.5
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Even if the waiting period was average for a journal of this calibre, I would have expected after 4.5months to receive at least 2 peer reviews that could have helped me amend the paper better for the next submission. What made it worse was that despite the rejection, the feedback was generally positive and the paper could have easily been accepted with correction. Again, this made it more difficult when reworking the paper.
Ecological Economics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Chromatographic Science 111.3
weeks
144.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After waiting for 2 years and reviewed by 4 reviewers, my manuscript was accepted and positive remarks given by 3 reviewers. The last and 4th reviewer has given negative remarks without suggesting any changes to be done. Therefore editor has make decision to revise again but without any remarks and making long delay, I have decided to withdraw my paper from journal after wasting 2 years.
American Journal of Perinatology 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Long review time.
American Journal of Perinatology 9.4
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 3.4
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick review process, good reviewer comments.
Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging 2.7
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Big Data 3.6
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 8 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This is a top journal with extensive review conducted smartly and effectively fast. The journal is open access, and fees may be a challenge without funding
International Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics n/a n/a 384.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took 14 months to make the decision not to review, this is way too long especially after contacting the editor twice after 6 months on the status of the manuscript. The review process is a waste of time.
Case Studies on Transport Policy 88.6
weeks
88.6
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The Editor could not identify suitable reviewers for the topic and kept the manuscript for 20 months. I sent mails after one year to the editor and the journal manager to make a decision on time so that I can consider alternative journals if necessary, but the editor refused to respond, until 20 months was wasted before rejecting the manuscript. This poor practices by editorial teams frustrate authors to submit to multiple journals at one.
Nutrition Reviews 5.7
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers seemed interested and informed on the topic. Feedback was generally constructive and aimed at increasing clarity.

From start to finish, the process took approximately 6 months. Since two revisions were required, this seems an appropriate amount of time.
Nature Geoscience 4.6
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process and editorial handling was far superior to many encountered. There was some delay in receiving the final decision after revision. The online proofing system did not work and there was some inflexibility in handling the proof corrections but overall a very positive experience.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: My coauthor and I felt stuck with this project so we sent it off to get some critical feedback. I was worried about a desk reject but the editor sent it out to external reviewers. There were two reviewers who suggested a denial and the other two suggested an R&R with major revisions. The feedback included suggestions for additional data and clarifying theoretical frameworks. The editor was an expert on the topic I was writing on, so he gave us a thorough feedback in his letter too. He suggested a denial, but I was not surprised by the result.
Social Science Computer Review 4.3
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Although we got a "conditional accept" and the reviewers argued that we followed all suggestions of round 1 in a satisfying way, the editor decided to reject the paper. He argued with the journal's backlog.
Further, reviewer 2 had some new comments which she has not mentioned in her first review (and which did not raise because of our revision). The editor argued that manuscripts are rejected, if there are issues remaining after the first revision.
This was the worst experience I've ever had with a review process.
Biosensors and Bioelectronics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Anatomy 13.0
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The initial review process was longer than I had anticipated, but the reviews were on the whole thorough and useful. On second review the additional comments were very useful and caught errors we missed which were highly beneficial for the article. The editor was very helpful throughout the review process, and ultimately I am glad we submitted to the Journal of Anatomy.
Economics and Politics 31.7
weeks
31.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Emotion Review 32.9
weeks
32.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews were (relatively) helpful, and the outcome being a rejection was not entirely surprising given the reviews. However, the journal took way too long to share these reviews after they had come in. It took months "Awaiting decision" and some email exchanges with the editors to get a reply. Nevertheless, the editorial staff was helpful and approachable.
Energy Research and Social Science 15.4
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The feedback of the reviewers was very constructive and helpful, which improved the paper greatly. Benjamin Sovacool's personal comments further showed the interest in the paper and was very much appreciated. Overall smooth and timely revision process!
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 0.7
weeks
1.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Opinions of the reviewers are useful and helpful to our manuscript. This journal is very efficient!
International Journal of Nursing Studies 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
ACS Omega 4.4
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fair experience of the review process.
Journal of Policy Modeling 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After submitting the manuscript, the submission system indicated that it was sent to referees. NOT TRUE!, The manuscript was not even submitted! I emailed the office a copy of the manuscript to make sure they received it. After about 6 months, after trying to be in contact with the editor for a long time, they told me they have not received the manuscript. Bad communication by the editor and IT WAS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. Send to another journal, this is the last journal you want to send your manuscript to.
Movement Ecology 6.1
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Even though it took a month for the editor to assign the reviewers, we got the revisions very fast. All comments improved the manuscript and were highly constructive. We got two weeks to adjust the manuscript, which was accepted one week after re-submission. We highly recommend publishing in this journal.
Patient Education and Counseling 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal handled our manuscript quckly and the reviewers did a fine job. We were rejected and the reasons seemed plausible. One of the comments of one of the reveiwers were unexpected and a bit hard to agree on, but in general they pointed out weaknesses that allowed us to improve the manuscript for another attempt at another journal. One negative aspect: in the guideline for authors there were a couple of inconsistencies that made the submmission process more confusing and time-consuming then it should be.
Nature Protocols 6.9
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Land Use Policy 28.1
weeks
28.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: After not hearing anything from the editor for almost 5 months, I send them an email to which they responded promptly, telling me that they haven't managed to find any reviewers for my paper. They asked me to be patient and after a couple of months more (seven in total) I received one (negative) review.