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
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Understandable, well described reason for rejection. Reviewers were knowledgeable and provided useful feedback.
Asian Journal of Control 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Qualitative Health Research 3.7
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: From the first review 2 out of 3 reviewers gave very positive comments, but the 2 very positive review reports were ignored and it was sent out for a second review with the one negative reviewer again, and another reviewer.
Forest Ecology and Management 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers comments were clear and easy-to-follow. They improved the quality of the work and not just the way it was presented.
Landscape Ecology n/a n/a 1118.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PeerJ 4.6
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewer comment were clear and the overall process was fast. The communication with editor and journal staff was excellent.
Oecologia n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Clinical Microbiology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
BMC Microbiology 18.6
weeks
26.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Public Budgeting and Finance 8.7
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I ended up having to change the originally submitted manuscript significantly, but I liked the new approach and I think the quality was improved.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 16.0
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 4 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Neural Computing and Applications 15.2
weeks
15.2
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Journal of Information Processing Systems 62.9
weeks
62.9
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers were probably sleeping for 14 months. Suddenly, someday, for 10 minutes they read the paper and rejected. It was a pathetic experience. I am also a reviewer for top journals, but, I do proper judgment to a research article.
Plant Biotechnology Reports n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the result was not what I expectd, the Journal replied quickly, and I was able to send the manuscript to another journal
Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Lake and Reservoir Management 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Political Studies Review 16.4
weeks
26.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Perspectives on European Politics and Society 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Parasitology Research n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No.
Libri 4.3
weeks
4.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This was my first and very positive experience with this journal. The reviewer comments were helpful and helped me to improve the quality of the paper. Also, the review process took only 30 days (which was in advance announced).
Journal of Geometry and Physics 57.9
weeks
58.6
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was extremely slow but the report was quite accurate
Israel Journal of Mathematics 3.4
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Extremely fast
Asymptotic Analysis 13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Science and Engineering Ethics 8.7
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This was my first major journal submission and the editor and reviewers were extremely helpful and polite.
Social Cognition 5.6
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were quite substantial and provided after a very short period of time. The desired changes to the manuscript were clearly summarized so that we could address them rather quickly, although quite a lot was demanded.
Springerplus 14.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: It took to my opinion unacceptable long till reviewers had been asigned and reviews arrived. Editors managed to receive one review only. The review suffered from major ill-interpretation of our results. I informed the editors about the shortcomings of the review and asked them to inform the reviewer and to reconsider their decision (rejection) based on my explanations by which I rectified our approach. The editors told me that they will take care of my "problem". However, I never got an answer. Our mansucript virtually disappeared. This is certainly a terrible way to deal with the work and ideas of ours. I appreciate the scirev-initiative since I feel often rightless in light of such kind of arbitrainess.
Surface and Coatings Technology n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Asian Journal of Control 8.1
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Although the paper was rejected, the advices of the reviewers hepled me improve my work and I learned much from the review process
The review process of this journal was timely, accurate and instructive.
Synthetic Metals 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Synthetic Metals n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Sex Research 6.0
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were sent back reasonably fast. They were thorough, fair and provided useful comments. Enough time to revise the manuscript was alotted for each revision round (60 days).
Research Papers in Education 14.7
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Both reviewers were very helpful and constructive. Their reports helped make a substantial revision to the original manuscript. I recommend researchers in the field of education choose this journal for submitting their manuscript.
Toxicology Letters 5.3
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
JAMA Psychiatry n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 22.9
weeks
53.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Language Learning 13.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: My experience with Language Learning was the best. The feedback from the reviewers and especially from the editor were very helpful
Human Molecular Genetics 6.4
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reasonable time for turnaround, motives for rejection are clear.
Nature Communications 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Long turnaround, there was a long wait period until it was sent for review. Although the manuscript advertised short review times, it took a total of 3 months. One of the reviewers also rejected with blank statements of non-novelty without providing evidence/citations. Very frustrating.