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
Journal of Adult Development 40.1
weeks
40.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: It was six weeks before the editor sent the paper out for review. Eight months later, I still did not have a decision. None of my inquiries received a response. Finally, I wrote and said that I intended to withdraw my paper if I did not hear anything within a week. Days later I received an acceptance.
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 18.4
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Philosophical Magazine 12.4
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was fair. Editor's treatment quite friendly and objective.
Corrosion Science 18.0
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The matter of discontent is that the editor, surely, is in his right to to consider the paper to be out of the scope of his journal, but to take more than 4 months to arrive at this conclusion is toooooooo much
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Unfair consideration by the Assistant Editor whose reasons for rejection were: (1) "the initial scrutiny of your manuscript has revealed that your manuscript has a very limited scope for our journal", which was quite surprising, because the journal has specific rubric on the issue; (2) "it has not been formatted properly according to author's guidelines", which was the height because the manuscript was prepared strictly in accordance with the guidelines point by point.
Journal of Hydro-Environment Research n/a n/a 238.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Sensors 10.6
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fairly smooth. I have only few problems with one of the reviewer tha in my opinion was not a great expert in the field of the manuscript
Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical 64.4
weeks
66.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Hydrobiologia 21.6
weeks
21.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Neotropical Entomology 9.4
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical 8.4
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Environmental Microbiology 45.6
weeks
45.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 17.1
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Most of the reviewers' comments were useful and helped improving the quality of the accepted manuscript.
Radiation Measurements 10.6
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: It was a good experience for me to submit and follow my manuscript with this journal
Current Eye Research 27.4
weeks
28.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Pteridines 3.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Journal of Communication 8.7
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: It was amazing. Before the submit my article, the proof-reading was done. I think that it was a good choice.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
4
(very good)
Accepted
BMJ Open 16.9
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 11.1
weeks
25.4
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Development in Practice 11.0
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The expertise and speed with which my paper was processed by Development in Practice (DiP) were commendable
General Hospital Psychiatry 5.7
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Applied Surface Science 12.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The comments received from the editor and the two reviewers were very objective, systematic, constructive and even inspiring. They included some editing in the wording. Also, they helped us clarify and re-write some ambiguous points and redesign tables. For few of the comments that we felt inappropriate, we sent back explanations and justifications to support our views. These justifications were accepted. Our authorship group considered this experiences indeed a rich and inspiring one!
World Bank Economic Review n/a n/a 140.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very long time for desk rejection
Optics Express 4.4
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Systems and Control Letters 18.3
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Transfusion Medicine Reviews 5.6
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional with areal willingness to improve the paper
Vox Sanguinis 9.1
weeks
17.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very professionnal
Blood n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Transfusion 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was not considered as a high priority by the editor, so why to sent it to external reviewers.
BMC Health Services Research 7.3
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Rapid review
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 30.1
weeks
30.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Too long
British Food Journal 9.1
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and straightforward process. The reviewers had many insightful suggestions that really improved the paper.
International Journal of Consumer Studies n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor thought it was not a good fit for the journal, without much explanation.
Nature Materials n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick responce! Rejected within 3 days. Do did not have to waste time!
BMC Research Notes n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My manuscript was not found suitable for BMC Research Notes and the editorial team suggested to transfer my manuscript to Journal of Medical Case Reports. I agreed to the transfer.
Journal of Medical Case Reports 27.0
weeks
38.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I do not have any negative experience or any criticism to the Journal of Medical Case Reports. My overall experience was positive. The review process was slow. I am happy with the outcome. My manuscript was published.
Journal of the Electrochemical Society n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted (im.)