Submit review Create journal list

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
Computational Thermal Sciences 43.4
weeks		 43.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
British Journal of Sports Medicine 6.7
weeks		 16.1
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the review for this manuscript was of a high quality with the reviewer even going to the detail of matching protocol procedures to the final manuscripts methods to ensure the quality of the submission was high.
Scientific Reports 0.6
weeks		 0.6
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The paper was transferred from another NPG journal where it was rejected after review and the reviewers transferred with it. The deputy editor personally handled the transfer, was responsive, and accepted the manuscript after reading the revised copy and the responses to reviewers without sending it out for further review. It was a seamless transfer and we're happy with the process at SR.
Pain 10.3
weeks		 10.3
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
River Research and Applications 7.6
weeks		 7.6
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 11.0
weeks		 11.3
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
International Journal of Cancer 2.0
weeks		 2.0
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Construction Management and Economics n/a n/a 14.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was simply rejected. Thus rejecting for future submissions with revisions. Rejection is informed immediately without any delay.
Nature Communications 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: My experience with Nature Communications was the worst I've had out of the 13 different journals I have published in. Initially, there was a delay in the review of our manuscript because they could not track down the third reviewer they selected. Then after waiting another month they still could not get the reviews so they sent us low-quality reviews. One simply said accept as is, the other literally stated they did not read the whole paper because they didn't like it. Our handling editor had no familiarity with the subject matter and was therefore unable to address the integrity and quality of these reviews or provide their own opinion. We then successfully appealed for a revised manuscript to be sent to a third reviewer. After almost 3 months, we received two more reviews from the two original reviewers, which contained almost the exact same responses. This was curious given that the sole request in our appeal was to send our paper to a new reviewer. But we decided not to pursue the issue further. Ultimately, we were failed by the handling editor, who should have done a better job at managing the chosen reviewers and inspecting their reviews for quality and potential bias before accepting them.
Frontiers in Genetics 4.6
weeks		 8.9
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 12.1
weeks		 18.1
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The time from submission to acceptance was acceptable and the quality of the feedback from reviewers was high.
Energy Conversion and Management 6.0
weeks		 7.3
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal of Sound and Vibration 22.1
weeks		 29.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Food Chemistry 29.4
weeks		 46.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: - The process took 11 months in total, thus 7 months the first revision round and 3.5 months the second. The editor didn't replay to any email and only due to the elsevier chat was possible to obtain updates.
- The final decision arrived one week after we asked to withdraw the manuscript. Even if we officially asked to withdraw the manuscript (3.5 months after the 2nd submission) the editor didn't withdraw the submission but reject the manuscript.
- The manuscript was rejected why we didn't run a new -minimum- 2 years experiment, different in respect the current one. However, the editor gave us only 3 weeks to submit the revised version (minor revision was requested).
- The reviewer of 2nd round had the number #3, but in the 1st round we got the comments of reviewer #1 and reviewer #2. The editor never replay if the reviewer #3 was the same as reviewer #1 or #2. Therefor we assume that was one of the first two. It could be that was a third reviewer that we never got his/her comments.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 18.0
weeks		 20.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: the reviewers had constructive remarks. However, the manuscript was too long with too many details on the numerical method and its validation. To my point of view, it was not justified to reduce the length of the manuscript since it was a complete work useful for other researchers.
Revista Cientifica General Jose Maria Cordova 0.0
weeks		 0.0
weeks		 n/a 1 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Journal of Micropalaeontology 11.3
weeks		 37.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Journal of Micropalaeontology 46.1
weeks		 62.9
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Telecommunication Systems 13.0
weeks		 21.7
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 5.9
weeks		 15.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal of Hepatology n/a n/a 14.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Experience was positive. Editorial board was professional. After rejection, we submitted the manuscript to another journal
Scientific Reports 11.7
weeks		 11.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Both reviewers raised mostly similar concerns. Although we can address most comments relatively easily, thereby improving the manuscript as requested by the reviewers, the editor chose to reject the manuscript mostly basing his decision on a too low sample size.
Journal of Morphology 4.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The editors were rapid in their decision to send the article to review. The article was sent to relevant referees who offered constructive criticism and highlighted valid points of the study which needed further analysis. We were surprised to receive major revisions given the scope of the work which was actually necessary; however this is only semantics. On revision of the article, both editors and referees were punctual with their final comments, allowing the article to proceed in to publication in a timely manner.
Journal of Morphology 4.6
weeks		 7.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Review process was streamlined and the editors answered all queries promptly. Referees offered meaningful and constructive critical analysis of the manuscript. As few changes were necessary, both editors and reviewers were able to rapidly turn over the second review, and the publishing editors were equally swift in their online publication of the article.
Journal of Anatomy n/a n/a 0.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We were surprised that the journal immediately rejected the article on the basis of the study not being in the remit of the journal, as the article involved quantification of anatomy with inferences on the evolution and function of the anatomical units in question.
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 8.7
weeks		 11.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Editorial process was rapid and well informed, sending the manuscript to two referees with clear understanding of the subject matter. Reviews were helpful and punctual, expediting publication of the article following very minor revisions
Biotropica 8.6
weeks		 10.1
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The process from this journal is exactly like a journal should operate. My paper was given two reviews and the reviewers got enough time to give me excellent reviews. They were long, but thorough, and significantly improved the writing of the manuscript. It was clear that the paper was considered thoughtfully. The subject editor also gave great advice and helped with content as well as minor editing details to fit the style of the journal. The first decision was 'minor revisions'. Given the requested revisions were mainly in the writing and clarity of methods, I would agree with that outcome. They also gave plenty of time to make the revisions, and the final acceptance was quick. I had a great experience at this journal and will definitely submit there agian
Nature Neuroscience n/a n/a 22.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Really long for a desk reject... given other people's experiences I will skip nature neuro in the future unless I'm really sure it will go through. Could definitely have gone out for review somewhere else by now.
Journal of Child Health Care n/a n/a 3.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery n/a n/a 8.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The rejection letter from the EIC came across as rude and it was disappointing to receive feedback about not reporting long-term adverse events when a significant section of the manuscript was devoted to adverse event and long-term follow-up.
Journal of Sports Rehabilitation 10.0
weeks		 20.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Both the editorial team and reviewers were very helpful in the development of this manuscript.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports n/a n/a 4.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 20.7
weeks		 32.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: While the review process for this manuscript was quite long it was due to the original narrative review being split into two literature reviewers requiring significant amounts of work from the editorial team, reviewers and authors. The overall outcome from this review was fantastic.
Navigation 17.3
weeks		 34.3
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The journal was very slowly and pree review process was very time consuming.
Earth, Moon and Planets n/a n/a 5.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Community Mental Health Journal Drawn back before first editorial decision after 134 days Drawn back
Motivation: For four months, the manuscript status has been “editor assignment pending,” meaning that it was not even reviewed. I have sent emails about my concern to the EO periodically. The officer said that he contacted the editor, but no reply from the editor. In addition, several other emails I sent to EO was ignored for about a month. I also sent an email directly to the editor, but I did not get a reply from her, either.
Water Science and Technology 11.3
weeks		 12.1
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 5.7
weeks		 8.4
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Our experience with this Journal was excellent. The manuscript was sent to external per-review within 1 week, within 1 month we got their response. There were 3 reviewers, 1 rejected the manuscript, 2nd found minor errors, whereas the 3rd put much effort to underscore shortcomings, suggested to perform additional experiments and reorganize the manuscript to make it more reader-friendly. All reviewers were all professsionals and experts in the fields. The manuscript improved a lot after revision.
The paper was published in 7 days after acceptance.
European Sociological Review 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Motivation: Review process was short. Reviews were informative and well-argued.
Translational Behavioral Medicine 3.0
weeks		 3.0
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Motivation: I was overall very happy with the reviews I received from this journal and their reasoning for rejecting the manuscript. It also was a fairly quick process. However, I believe one of the reviews was a bit unprofessional, as they started it by saying they were recommending rejection and then provided reasons for it. This is in contrast to how I've been taught to review a manuscript.