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
Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering 19.3
weeks
34.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This journal has high standards for the quality of the paper. The remarks from the reviewers were relevant. Thanks to their constructive remarks, there was an big improvement of the manuscript. To my experience, I recommend totally this journal and hope they will maintain their standards.
Revista Cientifica General Jose Maria Cordova 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
IEEE Sensors Journal 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I had a positive review experience with IEEE sensors journal in 2014.
However, in 2018, the review quality of this journal has drastically gone down.
The reviewers did not provide any valuable input on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Instead their reviews were mostly on the lines of: "I do not think this will work"
This is a dangerous precedent being set these days. Science has to be backed by evidence and not by "personal-opinion".
The editorial board is equally responsible for their lousy attitude.
Both the reviewers had diametrically opposite views.
The reviewer 1 was extremely rude. My opinion about this journal has considerably changed. As a researcher, the first and the foremost important thing is proof of concept. The reviewers and editors have forgotten this.
Solar Energy 12.6
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Education and Work 18.4
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The final round of reviews took several weeks, and I had to contact the editor regarding the amount of time. I was told that he/she was unable to reach the reviewers, possibly because of strikes happening in the UK at the time. Aside from the long time it took to receive reviews I was pleased with the comments I received and the treatment of my paper.
BMC Cancer 32.1
weeks
32.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Communication was extremely poor. After numerous emails approximately 5 months after submission, the journal finally responded to say they were looking for a second reviewer. The editor was very unresponsive, and did not offer the authors the option of suggesting further reviewers.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.3
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process is too long compared to other journals.
Reviewers accept the paper (with various remarks), but the Editor decided to reject it.
Nature Climate Change n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neuropsychology 12.3
weeks
32.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: 1st decision was quite late and only after I asked about it. We were asked to make only few changes, the first review was very positive. Nevertheless, the 2nd decision took again quite long and was received only after I asked about it. Surprisingly, three new reviewers had got our article. Again, all reviews were very positive. Summary: Much too long time for only few changes asked.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 9.4
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Drawn back
Motivation: My second experience with JNB, and both times my impression was that this journal is a bit "soft", in the sense that all remotely technical language is discouraged, and the journal seems to lean mostly towards social psychology. In this case the comments made by the editor and one reviewer revealed a complete lack of understanding of the subject (acoustic communication), so I decided against revising and resubmitting.
Journal of Water and Climate Change 4.1
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 20 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were fair.
The Journal was quick in all procedures.
Energies 1.3
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process of Energies is very fast. However, the first round of reviews was not of a high quality, even if they found my paper very interesting. After the second round, I received another review report, which this time make to improve the quality of the paper.
Journal of Engineering Education n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Endocrinology 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The editorial decision to reject the paper felt unfair regarding the reviewers comments, however the reviewing process was extremely fast. They offered to transfer the paper to another journal or to execute the revisions anyway, however we switched to another journal after that.
Obesity n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "we do not feel that the paper contains sufficient new or novel information to assign a high enough priority score in this area"
Journal of Developmental Biology 2.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 6.4
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer very positive, the other thought wasn't interesting enough. Member editor agreed with latter, and also seemed to incorrectly think similar work had been done. I pointed this out to editor, but got a canned response that PNAS can't provide additional feedback.
Fossil Record 6.9
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Applied Science Research and Review 3.0
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 9 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
PLoS ONE 8.1
weeks
21.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Algebra and Number Theory 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: This journal goes for short, preliminary reviews before going for a full one. This preliminary reviewing process is fast and that's good. IMO the journal seems to be biased against some areas. The journal officially boasts to be of certain standard which is very much doubtful.
Interpretation 10.3
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Electronic Materials 10.9
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This was my first journal paper during my doctoral studies. And, possibly, that's why review process and revisions required good amount of time and efforts from me. Reviewer's comments were very helpful.
Journal of Environmental Sciences 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Agricultural History n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I have given the manuscript an initial assessment and concluded that its contents and methods do not really mach those proposed in the Scope of this journal.
Algebra and Number Theory 10.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Quality of review was extremely poor. It also had severely flawed statements based on which the recommendation was made. I challenged those statements through the editor. Reviewer did not respond!
Advances in Data Analysis and Classification Drawn back before first editorial decision after 159 days Drawn back
Motivation: The article has been showing "Editor Assigned" for the last six months without being sent to reviewers. After waiting for six months, we contacted the editor who sent a mail to somebody in the springer editorial office requesting to know the status. Nobody replied and its been two weeks, therefore, request for withdrawal was made.

Its disappointing to see a large number of deadbeat journals like these in springer publishing which take almost 2 years to publish (going by their latest online papers) due to lack of interest by editors and reviewers alike. Springer Nature should really "review" these journals for removal/improvement.
Pharmaceutics 1.3
weeks
1.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Nonlinear Science 20.1
weeks
20.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: I received two reports: one very positive, constructive and to the point. The other, very negative, agressive and offensive, and with vague words about the paper itself. After the decision was communicated, I wrote to the editor-in-chief, saying that the negative report was extremely rude and not technica. He then asked me to write a rebuttal letter and he would then send my letter and the manuscript to an adjuticator. This third reviewer made a positive report of our results, but recommended rejection saying that the problem which we were considering was more theoretical and not necessarily related to nonlinear problems coming from real problems. Although I read in this journal papers not necessarily coming from real problems, I can accept this argument. Overall, my opinion about the whole process was positive.
IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics 21.9
weeks
50.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: I had to e-mail to the journal around one month after each submission. The paper was completely stopped, without any editorial action. In reply to one of my messages, the editor-in-chief wrote that he cannot see my paper through the system and he was asking for some help. Moreover, in the first revision one of the reports was somewhat nonsense, but we did our best to make changes according to the referee's suggestions. Then, in the second round of the revision, the editor invited two other reviewers to the manuscript. It was really a desaster. One of the asked us to cancel the editions we made by the reviewer I mentioned and, in essence, return the paper to its original version. Summarising: it was a terrible process. I didn't like.
Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications 10.0
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took a resonable time, the reports we received were very technical and coherent. The editor was quick in each step of the process.
Cognitive Neuroscience 5.9
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast editorial processing. Reviewers provided critical but friendly and constructive comments and suggestions.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 13.4
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Emerging Markets Review n/a n/a 29.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The subject editor gave me very detailed suggestions.
Science Advances n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Prevention Science n/a n/a 34.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rather lengthy time for a desk rejection. Contacted journal after three weeks of status "Awaiting Editor Assignment" and was told editors were busy and hadn't had a chance to look at it yet.
Journal of Adolescent Health n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I did not agree with their reasoning for the manuscript not being a good fit. I thought it should have at least been sent out for review. However, I am grateful for the quick process with which it was rejected, which allowed me to send it to a new journal
Psychology of Women Quarterly 16.9
weeks
32.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers of my manuscript were very helpful, and I believe they provided me with good feedback. However, I was very disappointed in the review process because the editor rejected my manuscript after two rounds of resubmission based on what could be considered "fatal flaws" present in the first review round. I believe the manuscript was handled unprofessionally, and it would have been better for the editor to reject the manuscript outright. Instead, my manuscript spent a year being revised and resubmitted and under review with nothing to show for it.
Natural Resources Forum 8.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 7 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After submitting my manuscript to the Natural Resources Forum, I received a revise and resubmit with comments from 7 reviewers. It was a very long process to revise the paper in a way that dealt with the concerns of all 7 reviewers who were focused on very different aspects of the paper.
After re-submission, I received a second round of comments from 6 of the 7 reviewers. The majority commented on how well I had dealt with the first round of comments and many said it was ready for publication or just needed a few final edits. While this process was certainly longer and more intense that normal, I do believe a better paper emerged out of it and that is great.
I finally received a decision from the editor simply reading "I found the contribution of the paper hard to identify. The article could be better articulated and focused. Therefore, we will not pursue publication of the article in the Journal." They did not reference the revisions or any specifics about the paper after almost 1 year of work from me and seven reviewers. The decision read as though it was a desk rejection, even though the paper had been through 2 rounds of revise and resubmit. Upon my asking for more detailed information about why there was a rejection decision, my email was ignored. I would not recommend this journal to anyone purely for the way the editorial staff has conducted themselves.