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
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 3.0
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast handling.
Plant Cell 5.6
weeks
10.2
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Behaviour Research and Therapy 25.1
weeks
34.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Molecular Ecology 6.3
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers spent a lot of time giving very clear and helpful constructive criticism. The process was fair. I needed to make a lot of changes during the first revision but the editor let me have a year and then extended it when I asked (covid-related delays to work). The changes made absolutely improved the paper.
Journal of Global Information Management 20.9
weeks
25.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Timely and promptly replied to my queries and actions were taken when needed.
Journal of Political Economy n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Courteous editor letter with some constructive comments.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.0
weeks
37.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Cell Science 8.1
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were detailed and of high quality and helped improve the manuscript.
Communicating with the journal was easy and the process was clear.
Angiology n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The statement informing us about the editorial decision was very short and not helpful for future submissions.
Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision 7.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer quality was good. Their paper submission and tracking system is convenient.
Epidemics 10.3
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Acta Zoologica 2.7
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was quite quick in handling our manuscript.
Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 4.1
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The handling editor was super efficient and the paper was accepted in one month.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20.9
weeks
32.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Took 2+ months to find reviewers, but it was understandable during the covid outbreak. The associate editor also provided careful review, which was the first experience for me.
International Journal of Advertising 13.3
weeks
36.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Surface Review and Letters 3.9
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected by Surface and Coatings Technology, but after we submitted almost the same thing to another Q1 journal, it was accepted.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 10.9
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Genes 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 18.1
weeks
34.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I don't recommend sending articles to Millennium except for special issues because their editors change every year. So, I think what probably happened in my case is that the previous editor liked the manuscript enough to send it for review but the new editor didn't like it. So, I have received really good reviewer reports with the first decision and revised the article as best as possible. However, the article was rejected in the next round with comments from one new reviewer and supposedly one of the old ones. I don't know how was the old reviewer's report because they didn't even send it to me, they just wrote 'see attached file' but there was no file. The new reviewer thought that the article was interesting but suggested me to write a completely different article (based on completely different data and methodology).

It was obvious to me that the new editor didn't like the paper and would have desk rejected it. Since the editors change every year, you have to convince two different editorial teams that your paper is worth publishing which doesn't really worth the trouble. Plus, the journal is really slow. It took me nine months what would be a desk reject in a couple of weeks with another journal. And with all due respect, the fact that all editors are PhD students and they are in charge for only one year means that you will have to deal with very unexperienced editors. So, maybe it is better to send your work here if you are already established in your field and want to support the idea of a journal run by graduate students. I would recommend staying away if you are an early career researcher.
Social Neuroscience 9.7
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Tropical Doctor n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
2D Materials n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Catalysis 7.9
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Clinical Nutrition 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 2
(moderate)
Rejected
Scientometrics 12.3
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Space and Culture n/a n/a 178.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Too much time passed between submitting the article until we were told they were out of space and that it did not fit well with the scope of the magazine.
Psychological Methods n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 3.6
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The turnaround times for reviews was excellent. The online review forum was useful
Energy Technology Journal 5.7
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The handling is fast and correct.
Migration Letters 15.7
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The web platform of the Journal is unrefined, and complex to interpret. Communication on the stages of the review is lacking. Proofs were problematic too.
International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation 56.4
weeks
138.9
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were very professional and their comments were very constructive. However, the overall journal duration from submission to acceptance is very not commendable. I do not recommend this journal if you want a fast publication of your manuscript.
Psychological Test Adaptation and Development 2.3
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editors responded always very quickly.
The reviews itself were very helpful including helpful references. I learned a lot during the review process.
Asian Survey n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The reason for rejection was just one sentence that was vague and contained inaccurate statements. For one, it said the identification of the estimated parameters was unclear without bothering to specify where exactly the identification problem is. Second, it made a false statement saying the two functions I am estimating "largely contain" the same variables, while in reality they are based on five variables only one of them being common.
Neoplasia 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
international Journal of Qualitative Methods 16.1
weeks
23.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The EA comment is valid, and high in quality
Annals of GIS n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This journal is slow in terms of processing the manuscript and giving decisions.
Journal of Psychology in Africa 3.9
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Decisions in Economics and Finance n/a n/a 82.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Review of Finance n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: So, if are thinking that providing a sound description of your experimental analysis (included hypotheses and description of empirical analysis) is what registered report mean at this journal, as in Nature journals, this is NOT THE case...this is just serve to "check the water"-. Save your money!
AAPS Journal 3.6
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Quality reviews. After the 1st revision, the editor sent out for review again. Relatively quick with editorial decisions.