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
Current Psychology n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor "feels" that the English is not up to standard, but we used various grammar and language quality checks to evaluate our manuscript and it consistently got high evaluation scores. The editor did not point out specific language issues that significantly affect the readability of our manuscript and so the decision is not convincing at all. Definitely wouldn't recommend this journal.
Distance Education n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Social Policy and Administration 12.0
weeks
19.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Work and Occupations 10.4
weeks
26.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The referees' comments were extensive, but led to substantial improvement of the manuscript. The editorial team handled the submission very professionally and provided useful feedback for addressing the referees' comments.
Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
SSM - Population Health 4.4
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: 1. Fast review process (4weeks to the first decision)
2. The MS was reviewed by experts
3. Very detailed and, thus, challenging review
4. The reviewers opinion contributed a lot to improvement of our MS
My overall impression for this journal is very good. My manuscript was sent to experts in this field and undergone thorough review.

Since SSM-population health is an OA journal, APC must be paid. If it were not, I would like to submit more often.
Animal Conservation 8.7
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
American Journal of Psychiatry 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were fair and comprehensive and seemed to be from experts in the field. I thought the process was a little slow and we sent at least one chasing email.
MDPI Axioms 2.4
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Results in Applied Mathematics 5.0
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Results in Physics 8.7
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Pathogens and Global Health n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
La revue veterinaire clinique 4.4
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
SSM - Mental Health 7.9
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Population 17.4
weeks
60.8
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 11.3
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Environmental Earth Sciences 27.0
weeks
60.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations 20.7
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fair handling time, and fair referees.
Energy RESEARCH LETTERS 8.7
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I had to recommend the journal to my colleagues for publication.
I had like to add that the close-ended structure of the preceding questions do not allow me to indicate that my article is still on review. However, those review dates given are the expected time associated with the journal guidelines for publication.
MDPI Fractal and Fractional 2.0
weeks
2.1
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
AIMS Mathematics 8.1
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Advances in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 2.0
weeks
2.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 9.3
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' comments were extensive and well-argued, and for the most part contributed to improving the quality of the text. My overall impression is that the peer-review process was fast.
Journal of Adult Protection 13.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Applied Geography 28.4
weeks
28.4
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Too long waiting time until the article is sent to reviewers, and rejection decision.
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 28.6
weeks
28.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Although the opinions from the reviewers seemed to suggest a minor revision of the work, the paper was fully rejected due to "The reviewers have advised against publication of your manuscript and I must therefore reject it at this time". The editor proposed the option to resubmit the manuscript after substantial changes
Cancers 3.7
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 4 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
American Journal of Political Science 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Standard handling, based on two reviewers who were not excited about the manuscript and did not find the evidence compelling enough, the editor decided not to wait for a third reviewer.
Advances in Calculus of Variations 10.3
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast handling, but report felt like referee has not spent much time on the paper.
Motor Control 4.7
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Highly in-depth or detailed review that initially enhanced the manuscript following the presence of major issues. Subsequent reviews where then somewhat futile and potentially held up the publication process. N.B., studies on manual aiming/interception may likely go to or favour selection of one particular reviewer that provides useful insights, although incredibly "long-winded" and exhaustive to handle.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching 9.0
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: With credit to the editor, they tried tirelessly to contact and obtain reviewers, although all of which were solely suggested by the authors. It took in excess of 22 suggested reviewers before the final set of suggested reviewers had successfully volunteered. This seeming reluctance to review could be attributed in part to the unblinded review process.
PLoS ONE 6.0
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: - The review process was long
- The comments about technical requirements caused losing quite a bit of time before the paper was accepted.
Nature Climate Change 6.1
weeks
26.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was long and thorough. Most of the reviewer comments were constructive and served to improve the manuscript. There was an additional round of editorial comments at the end.
American Journal of Sociology 22.1
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: This review took a very long time. I wish there was more transparency around how long decisions take on average.
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology 19.1
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Social Forces 9.6
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Surprisingly swift review and comments from two competent reviewers who have clearly read the manuscript.
International Migration Review 24.7
weeks
57.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: IMR does thorough reviews and this manuscript was no exception. We're looking at a research note, and the reviews were rigorous. The length of what is a straightforward review process may be too much for some more junior colleagues where time (e.g. to graduation, to tenure) is critical.
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 5.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were quick and detailed, and they definitely helped improve the paper. The associate editor handling the process is to be commended as well. However, the editor-in-chief does not seem to be a fit for this role: e.g. he did not respond to multiple emails and the process is mismanaged.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 3.9
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers pointed out the background of the research and theoretical issues. There were also many comments on statistical analysis. Revisions were difficult because of disagreements between myself and the reviewers on some methodologies. It was difficult because this journal has a short period of time between the receipt of a decision and the revision of the paper.