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 Applied Social Psychology 11.7
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Clear and relevant requests by reviewers. Fast editorial process.
Water Policy 13.0
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 17.4
weeks
66.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I was strongly encouraged to rewrite the original submitted version. I did so, also submitting a detailed list of changes and responses. I submitted the revised version in September 2015. Toward the end of January 2015, I wrote the editor seeking an update. The reply: "I am still waiting for the reviews but chasing the reviewers. Hope to be able to come back to you shortly".

Having no reply, I wrote the editor in early September 2016, asking for an update. The reply in part: "To be frank, we have discussed your paper among the guest editors but felt that on balance the revised version did not address the concerns that had been raised by the reviewers. Hence we were not very optimistic that the revised paper would survive the inevitable peer review."
Applied Energy 6.7
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Applied Energy n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Research Policy 55.3
weeks
55.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
RSC Advances 3.0
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
BMC Genomics 21.7
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Neuroscience 3.5
weeks
6.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Everything went very quickly and efficiently with this Journal of Neuroscience review process. In a way, you somewhat expect this, given that you pay to submit to this journal. I was very pleased from start to finish with the speed, efficiency and quality of the peer review process with Journal of Neuroscience.
Global Environmental Change n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Seemed a bit slow for a desk reject (~2.5 weeks) but the submission process was relatively straightforward so not too much time lost.
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nature Geoscience n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 15.7
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were helpful and fast, with two rounds taking only ~4-5 weeks total. We had the paper for two weeks for revision. The remainder, ~5.5 months, was dragged out by poor editorial handling. We waited >1 month before an editor and reviewers were found.

As an example of the poor editorial handling, the editorial office told us (because we complained about the slowness) that the second round of reviews had been completed, yet our status remained "under review" for 3 weeks afterward instead of "required reviews complete" or "awaiting editorial decision". And no further revisions were requested by reviewers, so the editor had no excuse to wait that length of time.

Publication production was very fast, taking only a week from formal acceptance to online publication.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision making was too slow, and their comments were nothing but useless one.
Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica 6.6
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I have the feeling that if I hadn't asked for the status of our manuscript (after correcting everything the reviewers told us and sending it back), the paper would still be waiting the final decision.
Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical 19.0
weeks
19.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 11.7
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial assistant, Jenny Abarbanel, was consistently prompt and helpful. Reviewer comments were high-quality and contributed to the paper. Bruce Hoffman, the editor in chief, was also extremely prompt in all his communications. I highly recommend submitting your manuscript to this journal - they are communicative and timely where other journals are often unresponsive, slow, and unhelpful.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.7
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The durations of the reviews were less than 4 weeks, so it is relatively fast. The comments of two reviewers were rigorous and helpful for the improvement of my manuscript, so we revised our paper twice. We extended the revision time once, and the editor was easy to communicate.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 12.7
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices Immediately accepted after 14.6 weeks Accepted (im.)
World Psychiatry n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
British Journal of Psychiatry 17.4
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Long turn around time. Third reviewer (not involved in initial reviews) gave a very emotive review.
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Politics 20.6
weeks
24.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall good handling and high quality reviews.
First review round took quite long.
Critical Studies in Education 15.4
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were timely and very useful. Editorial decision-making was efficient and clear. I recommend this journal for a positive experience of publication process. .
British Journal of Political Science 11.3
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: overall handling was good. the quality of the reviews was average.
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.)
European Educational Research Journal 19.1
weeks
31.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Defence and Peace Economics 10.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very speedy. Still, the reports clearly showed that both the editorial staff and the the evaluators have gone over the text carefully. Feedback was very constructive, with clear reasons for rejection and recommendations for improvement.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 8.7
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Cognitive Processing 7.6
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Eye Movement Research 2.4
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is extremly fast. Everything is managed via email instead of a publication system, which I found very comfortable. Very nice is also that the corresponding author gets via email notice when the reviewers are informed about the paper.
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 34.7
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Medical Engineering and Physics 13.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I do not have any complaining about the speed of the journal. However I am not able to apreciate the reasons for the rejection. Journals, like Plos One, claim that they are not interested in percieved impact. But in my expreience they do, (somewhere in the deep). My manuscript was about genome-wide identification of an enzyme family in a group of single-celled eukaryotes. Editor thinks that blasting for the presence or absence of genes from publicly avaible data is not a primary scientific research (a criterion for publication with PlosONE). But I can show countless number of these kind of studies. Even one published in Plos One. He also found my phylogenetic analyses limited. This sounds to me that editor seeks an impact. Therefore, Plos One and that kind of journals should stop involving the name of Academic Editor in the accepted manuscript. Some "arrogant" editors do not want to be part of a nonimpactful paper. That is my theory.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 14.6
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reason for the gap between initial submission and external review was that the manuscript was under "Editorial Board Consideration" for nearly three months. Several (4) emails to the editorial office during this time got the simple reply that it was not possible to find an editor because they were all in the field or on holidays (literally). We send the fifth email as a letter of formal complaint to the Editor-In-Chief. We had an editor assigned within a week and the paper was sent immediately after for external review (only to 1 reviewer). I as leading author am not bothered with the review itself but with the rather poor handling of the manuscript by the editorial office.
Alexandria Journal of Medicine Immediately accepted after 10.6 weeks Accepted (im.)
Psychology, Health and Medicine 24.6
weeks
24.6
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: We doubt that this manuscript was carefully reviewed because in only one review that we have received, only a few minor changes that could be easily corrected were suggested. Also, by his comments the reviewer showed a lack of understanding and knowing about the topic of the manuscript. Furthermore, the editor did not write any valid explanation of the rejection although the reviewer commented that results were interesting, and certainly did not suggest rejection of the manuscript. After so long a period of waiting we consider this kind of treatment to be unfair at least.
Environmental Research Letters 9.0
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript submission was relatively simple and we received the first round of reviews in just over 2 months. The reviews were constructive and fair, and the manuscript was improved in quality after resubmission. The handling of the manuscript seemed prompt, fair, and diligent. Overall, I had a positive experience with ERL.