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 Economics n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Social Problems 10.4
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: I received the decision relatively quickly. 2 of the reviews were very balanced and helpful, but one seemed like they did not read the manuscript very closely. The editor also offered encouraging feedback on the paper even though it was a rejection.
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Immediately accepted after 0.1 weeks Accepted (im.)
BJPsych Bulletin 8.9
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Clinical Toxicology 3.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Business Strategy and the Environment n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Studies in Applied Mathematics 7.4
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: At each time I submitted my manuscript, it was very quick sent to review. I received very timely, critical and constructive reports. The final version of the manuscript is much better than the original one and the improvement is due to both reports, which I much appreciated. Overall I had a very nice experience and I strongly recommend this journal.
Organic Agriculture Drawn back before first editorial decision after 151 days Drawn back
Journal of Endourology 3.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Thanks to the editorial boards that made the decision too quickly. They transferred it to an open-access journal (ACS Omega). To be fair, they had better choices for transfer.
Soft Matter n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). They could make a better choice, though.
Soft Matter n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). Otherwise, they could transfer it to a better none open-access journal.
Psychological Medicine 21.6
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Soft Matter n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). Otherwise, they could transfer it to a better none open-access journal.
Schizophrenia Bulletin n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the American Medical Association n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Aging and Health 6.3
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and fair. Had one reviewer who didn't seem to read the article closely and asked for things that were outside the scope of the paper but that happens everywhere and should not reflect the journal. After the first round of revisions, the first reviewer was satisfied and the second review had only "one tiny comment" in which they said they did not understand a sentence that they had not commented on in the initial review. Instead of a conditional accept, we were given another R&R. Sent it back the same day and it was accepted the next day. Despite this hiccup, it was still an overall good experience publishing with JAH.
JAMA Cardiology n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular Human Reproduction 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Acta Physiologica 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
American Journal of Physiology: Endocrinology and Metabolism 6.5
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology 18.0
weeks
22.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Acta Oeconomica n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Computational Dynamics 13.4
weeks
22.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Received constructive reviews as well as feedback from the editor.
Emotion 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Extracellular Vesicles n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quite long time for immediate reject,
Advanced Functional Materials 8.6
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine 26.4
weeks
26.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: No response from editors when asked about exceptionally long review time, rejection based on one (very late) negative review.
Transformation Groups 18.6
weeks
24.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.4
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Though the reviewing process took quite a long time, the comments from the reviewers were very useful for my manuscript. I felt that my manuscript was significantly improved after the revisions. Once again, I am really appreciate all reviewers for their excellent comments.
New England Journal of Medicine n/a n/a 0.5
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.2
weeks
23.2
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I was impressed on the quality of the review reports received. The manuscript was hugely improved and also my current work has improved a lot thanks to the many things learned through the review process. The editors looked for many reviewers and were very committed to help improving the work instead of just accept/reject, which is very rare. Overall, the best one could hope for from a publication experience.
Journal of Physiology 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Life Sciences 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Food Quality and Preference 11.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers recommended rejection for mainly "academic" reasons (e.g., data analysis and experimental design not being the most elegant) while acknowledging the timeliness and value of the information presented. Many of the points raised were requests for clarifications/additional information which could have been addressed in a revision in my view.
On the upside, reviewers were clearly experts on the topic, their comments were useful to improve the paper, and the overall duration of the review process was decent.
Journal of Building Engineering 21.7
weeks
24.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The time taken for the process could be shorter. Currently, a 9 months gestation period from manuscript to the published version is a little too long in my opinion.
IEEE Access 11.6
weeks
31.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the review process took much longer than we expected and what is advertised. Most of the reviews were of good quality and understandable, with only one or two exceptions. One in particular was written in a fundamentally negative attitude that was too superficial to even understand and adress the concerns. The reviewer did not answer when contacted by the administrator for further details. It was somewhat difficult to understand the decisions of the editor because the paper was rejected with encouragement for resubmission even when all reviewers accepted the manuscript for publication, which was already the case in the first review round. Communicating the reject decision and providing only the reviews that recommend an "accept" is only of limited help. Resubmission was more effort compared to other journals because they are treated like new submissions, so that all metadata also needs to be entered again.
Journal of the American Chemical Society n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Economy and Society n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A bit slow for a desk rejection, but they are uncomplicated with the submission and explained the unusually high volume of submissions.
International Journal of Climatology 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected