All reviews received by SciRev

Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
4.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: - online submittiance to Plant Mol Biol is simple and fast
- review process is transparent and relatively fast
- the selected anonymous reviewers provided helpful criticism with realistic chances to respond properly and in appropriate time
- the handling Editor was an expert in this field and obviously selected the reviewers carefully, also overall handling of the manuscript was very professional
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: The rejection per se was not the problem - that's life in science- but rather the EXTREME time lag from submission to rejection.
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
6.5 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the publication process was fairly quick and well-streamlined. I particularly benefited from one of the two reviews my paper received, which was maximally useful in the revision process (clear, to the point, and pointing to highly relevant literature I was not familiar with before). This was a feature of the process that stood out (I realize there's an element of luck involved, of course).
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
3
Rejected
4.0 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Molecular Plant Pathology has a very rapid handling process, first decisions are usually reached within 4 weeks after submission. The editors often have a positive and constructive attitude.
7.0 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Our experience was good, the reviews were constructive (and kind) and, though the second review took a little longer than the first, we felt that, overall, response was very quick.
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was painless really. Reviews were useful; they had opposite views which really helped develop some of the work. Timings above are to the best of memory.

The only real issue, small but annoying, was the journal website said APA referencing style 3, on submission the editor initially instantly rejected it as he said APA 5, but the reviewers were on APA 6 (or other). This took a while to fix, but was just tedious.

It would be great if Journals would create an Endnote/other style for download, it might seem lazy, but it would save everyone time and allow focus on the actual detail of the work. It would also allow for changes in referencing styles to easily fixed/updated.
6.5 weeks
6.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Rejected
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: One of the reviewers recommended revision. This reviewer had read the text and the feedback was generally constructive and sensible. The second reviewer rejected the manuscript outright on grounds other than the content of the manuscript. The second reviewer's comments were a systematic deconstruction/rejection of the paper with little evidence that the paper had been read and the content understood. I contacted Russian Review and asked them to send me a copy of their instructions for peer reviewers and I was told they have none (!)
10.8 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The referee reports were really clear and the communication with the editorial staff was smooth. The few queries I had were hadled quickly and professionally
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I got two referees, one extremely helpful and one not-so-helpful. I am very satisfied overall with the delays and quality of reviews.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
2
2
Rejected
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: I was impressed by the speed of the review process.
0.7 weeks
0.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: No engagement with positive aspects of review, minimal advise on improvement.
8.7 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The handling was overall efficient, cordial, and fair. The publication time (from acceptance to print) was 1 year. Insistence on word limits added to the difficulty of finalizing. Handling of figures did not allow colour reproductions, even for electronic version without substantial cost, and figure space counts towards word limit, making the task even more difficult.
0.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Online publishing system for sending a little messy. The editor replied quickly. One of the reviewers did not respond for a long time, although his comments related only to the style of the text.
10.8 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: It took two months or so to get two reviews (which were really helpful by the way), but what makes this submission remarkable is that the editor had to contact 11 peers to get these two reviews. Some people immediately refused to review the paper, but most of them just did not respond to the editor requests. The editor handled the process really well; he or she managed to provide timely feedback even given the lack of response from the reviewers.
23.9 weeks
24.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast, constructive comments
8.7 weeks
36.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: The second round of review lasted for more than 6 months. After the first round we had one positive and one negative review, so the editor decided to send the paper to one more reviewer. Apparently, it was the search for the new reviewer that took so much time. Finally, the paper was rejected even given that the new reviewer provided quite constructive criticism that in principle could be addressed in a minor revision of the paper.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
38 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.6 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers and editors provided excelent input and drove me to get a more general and elegant result.
1.0 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The submission process has very clear requirements.
The recommendations of the Key Reader and reviewers led to the manuscript improvement.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: I think the editors overstated the extent of revisions that would have been required from the one reviewer that suggested revisions to clarify theoretical concepts employed. Second reviewer had no revisions suggested. Given these reviews, an outright rejection rather than R&R seemed severe.
6.5 weeks
8.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
17.4 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I had a great experience with Communication Research with Dr. Roloff as my editor. The manuscript benefited greatly from the editor's and reviewers' comments. The only issue is the backlog of manuscripts waiting to be published.
3.1 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review was professionally handled
7.0 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Accepted
43.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Drawn back
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The review was done very unrpfessionaly and some arguments used to reject the paper were clearly wrong. I had the feeling that the refee did not bother tor ead the paper carefully at al.
21.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Apart from slow review process, I was quite happy witht the outcome, especially as the topics of the paper is mutidisciplinary and this was the first article in this filed in Geofizika, as far as I know.
4.3 weeks
5.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted