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
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 2.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
RNA Biology 4.7
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers appreciated our studies and helped improve the final manuscript. We were particularly impressed by the swift handling of the manuscript.
Diversity and Distributions 10.1
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 239 days Drawn back
Motivation: We decided to submit to PLoS ONE because we wanted to make our research and especially the underlying data and codes open access. The administrative procedure went really smooth and the search for an academic editor was on its way quite fast. Afterwards it took 3 months to assign the paper to an academic editor. After three more months we were informed that the Journal is again looking for an academic editor. After in total 8 months we decided to withdraw our work. During the whole process (at different points in time) we proposed two potential academic editors from the Journal's list and 4 reviewers from our field.
Journal of Theoretical Biology n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The subject of our paper was not relevant to the current concerns of the journal, but we had chosen this journal based on some relevant articles in its previous volumes. The journal has sent us a very fast feedback with some propositions for guiding us to select a more relevant journal. This fast and convincing response shows the regularity and discipline of this great journal.
Ecological Economics n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very transparent and fair decision. Would definitely submit there again.
BMC Biology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: BMC Biology determines whether a manuscript to be sent out for external review by their editor team in consultation with Editorial borad members.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Three high quality review reports which arrived in less than 3 months time (pretty good for linguistics and especially during summer). I learned a lot from the reviews and the papre improved a lot. The article was accepted on the same day as it was resubmitted. Very pleasant interaction with editorial staff. Smooth handling.
Annals of Neurology 6.7
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
ACS Nano n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Global Change Biology 6.6
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Plus: High quality reviews were fair and really improved the paper.
Minus: Editor was not part of the review process, so a lot depends of reviewer choice and luck.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4.9
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Water Research 12.7
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very constructive reviews and a fast decision after submitting the revised manuscript.
Journal of Business Ethics n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neuropsychologia 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Heat and Mass Transfer n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 4.6
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Constructive remarks from the reviewers. Editor efficient and professional.
Science n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very long desk rejection process, zero personalised feedback. Waste of time.
Future Generation Computer Systems 18.9
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was submitted on 1st May on a Special Issue. The outcome of the review process was expected on 31st July. On 28th August, we sent an email to the guest Editor asking for some news without any reply. On 8th September, we sent an email to the Editor in Chief, who imformed us about the rejection with only one attached review.
Industry and Higher Education 10.1
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Good and timely handling of the manuscript. Competent reviewers and a communicative and devoted editor.
International Journal of Energy Research n/a n/a 30.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: In this journal they follow, as I later discovered, the following procedure:

The editor FIRSTLY, without relying on scientific reviewers specialized in the field, attempts to ascertain the originality of the the manuscript. For this, he uses the on-line application called Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/), that analyzes the text and performs web-based searches for identifying parts of the manuscript coincident with already published material.

Mine was rejected for having an index of coincidence greater than 20 % (it was 24 % as I later discovered). The only problem is that this included and added up a) Common, specialized clauses, such as e.g. "fluidized bed reactor" and many others, and b) The list of literature cited. (Ithenticate has an option to disallow that part, but it was "on" when analyzing my paper.) Being an specialized paper, both factors explained the high index of coincidence. Otherwise, neither in methods nor in subject of research nor results, Ithenticate detected anything coincident.
Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences 16.7
weeks
16.7
weeks
n/a 4 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Journal of Biogeography n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PeerJ 2.4
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall quality of reviews and journal submission system is excellent. Editor was not a subject area expert and deferred to nitpicking of reviewers too much, requiring multiple rounds of review that could have been more efficiently handled.
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 5.4
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, very happy with quality of reviews and review process. However, the journal's office policy/submission system can be improved. Currently, G3 has two options for revise and resubmit. The first allows 30 days to revise and does not require entering metadata for the article again. The second allows 90 days to revise but requires the author to manually re-enter all of the metadata required for a new submission.
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biology Letters 5.0
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The Editor's letter appeared justified but was simply a summary of the Reviewer's comment, which were unfortunately partly technically wrong (especially for critical aspects that led to the rejection). This is too often the case in the peer-review process that a fully justified response (with several references backing up the author argument) to the Reviewers comments is simply judged "not convincing" or "not correct" by the annonymous Reviewer (who does not have to back up his/her statement by any means). Expert Editor are needed to have an independent psoition over the paper.
Numerical Heat Transfer. Part A 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: This was my first submitted paper in this journal. The review process was completely good and the review process lasted about 1 month.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 24.7
weeks
24.7
weeks
n/a 20 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22.1
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 10 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: My paper was checked and reviewed by 10 different reviewers, and it was shocking for me to keep satisfy all of them at the first stage. 9 of reviewers recommended revisions (5 recommended acceptance), and only one reviewer advice rejection, and the paper was rejected.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I read several previous published papers in the topic of my paper in this journal. But, the paper was rejected by editor without any reason.
Building Simulation 18.1
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Nature Methods n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Buildings 4.9
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very responsive. Submission system is well implemented. Editing was very fast.
Social Science Research 22.7
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Unfortunately, one out of two reviewers did not understand the empirical approach at all (fixed effects). However, helpful comments regarding the theoretical framework were given by the editor.
Kyklos n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: To be honest, this is the most specific and constructive rejection letter I have ever seen. Kyklos editor introduced some papers in my research field, even gave summary and links. Furthermore, editor even recommended me specialized journal to submit my paper. Really appreciate that efforts ! Guide author very clearly and further the research, VERY HELPFUL!