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
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 2.6
weeks
2.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was read and carefully investigated. The overall handling was satisfactory and I think this is a good journal.
Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I think my manuscript was not read at all. They rejected it because I had no published paper in that field. May be they are right because they don't want to waiste their reviewer's times. But, I think these journals, must publish "invited papers" if they want to take the author's resume into account.
Cambridge Journal of Economics 52.1
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: It took more than a year to get reports from reviewers, one of which was only of few lines; When I talked to some colleagues about it, they laughed and said this is not unusual from this journal. I strongly advice against submitting a paper to it.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 16.0
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine 4.0
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Sociology of Health and Illness 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Acta Sociologica 8.0
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Pretty good experience overall.
Sociology of Education 5.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
American Journal of Psychiatry 6.0
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: I feel that we thoroughly and adequately addressed all reviewer concerns. After our resubmission the manuscript was rejected by the editorial board for reasons that were not initially indicated as problematic (e.g., the sample size).
Molecular Psychiatry n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neuron n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Psychological Medicine 10.0
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Initial round of reviews was somewhat slow, but after that the entire process was quite expedient with excellent communication both from editorial office and the production team.
JAMA Psychiatry 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Editorial decision seemed out of line with recommendations of reviewers.
Biological Psychiatry 3.7
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 22.7
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Decent duration of the review process. Two out three reviews of good quality, which certainly improved the manuscript, although the paper was rejected.
Linguistic Inquiry 30.1
weeks
30.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The paper made a pretty provocative claim, so I understand that the reviewers did not quite like it (although one reviewer was quite sympathetic). I wonder, though, why it would take more than 6 months to get reviewers for a double-spaced 12 page paper.
Geophysics 9.3
weeks
16.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was excellent, except review which arrived late.
Physical Review Letters n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review was returned in one day, with a rejection. However, a year later, another paper in the same area (and equally interesting results) was published.
Scientific Reports 5.4
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: One review consisted of only one negative sentence. This reviewer did not comment on a conceptual advance or the scientific quality but only on significance to the field although the journal explicitly stated in their policy that only scientific quality and not significance is rated. Both rounds of review were in good time but a quite negative experience was the quality check with unspecific and unjustified comments with a considerable loss of time and the requirement to upload each part of the manuscript again and again.
Physical Review E 8.0
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Geophysics 11.3
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were good, except for one reviewer who took too long.
Geophysics 7.6
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
BMC Medical Ethics 23.9
weeks
42.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Endodontic Journal n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Dentistry 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Endodontics 2.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Acta Sociologica 12.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: One review was thorough and helpful.

The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
Sleep and Breathing 4.4
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
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.
Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 15.6
weeks
15.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: All of my correspondence with the editor was courteous and professional. Although I did not receive the reviews as the reviewers wrote them, the editor provided a brief but specific summary combining their comments. I was able to use this feedback to improve the article to send it elsewhere.
Novum Testamentum 22.0
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: All of my interaction with the editorial assistant of the journal was pleasant and professional, and I have no complaints about the experience.
Novum Testamentum 20.9
weeks
20.9
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Although the manuscript was rejected, I did not receive any comments from the reviewers concerning the reason the manuscript was rejected.
New Testament Studies 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal handled the manuscript promptly, courteously, and professionally. The reviewer report that I received interacted with the article in detail and specificity, commenting on its strengths and weaknesses in organization, argument, discussion of primary literature, and interaction with secondary literature. I have consequently been able to revise my article according to all of the comments I received from the reviewer and have submitted it to another journal.
Archiv für Papyrusforschung und Verwandte Gebiete Immediately accepted after 10.1 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: As far as I know, the article wasn't sent for an external anonymous review, and hence I didn't receive any feedback or suggestions for improvement—apart from a few editorial notes and corrections on the already accepted draft. I think the article would have profited from a more rigorous review, not to mention copy-editing (which seemed minimal if at all present—most people on the editorial board are not native English speakers and the publisher is German). Overall, however, the editorial and publishing process was smooth and speedy and the article appeared in print within 7 months of submission—something almost unheard of in humanities journals!
BMJ Open 4.3
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Reading Research Quarterly 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Educational and Psychological Measurement 5.7
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ekonomicky Casopis/Journal of Economics n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The only reason given for rejection by the editorial staff was "Unfortunately, the topic covered in your manuscript is out of our editorial intentions." Since the journal claims a very broad range of topics of interest, (including mathematical modelling, which my article was about), I have difficulty understanding this basis for rejection. I sense that the journal leans towards the interests of the editors, rather than sticking to a stated field of interest.

Still, the journal process was speedy and I would consider submitting less technical papers to this journal (to see if I am still out of their editorial interests, if for nothing else).
Journal of Geophysical Research 11.1
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process of submitting an article to JGR was smooth and transparent the whole way. Both the reviewers provided constructive feedback which helped improve the quality of the paper and as the review points were addressed satisfactorily, the revised paper was accepted. The entire process from submitting to revision to acceptance took 5.5 months.