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
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 12.6
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.7
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was excellent, except for the duration of the first review which was really long (almost 18 weeks!). However, at the end of the review process the manuscript was improved a lot.
Pharmacognosy Magazine 5.3
weeks
36.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was too long
Natural Product Research n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They offered the possibility for a short communication
Fitoterapia n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Contemporary European Studies 10.9
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Comparative European Politics 21.7
weeks
43.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Social Science Information 9.4
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Biogeosciences 33.1
weeks
35.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Biogeosciences 22.1
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Biogeosciences 18.6
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Qualitative Sociology 31.6
weeks
31.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The Qualitative Sociology website states that the average time for review is 85 days. This paper took 145 days to be reviewed (that is, almost double of the time expected). Also, after submitting the paper in March, and not having heard from the journal since then, I contacted the journal in late July. I was then told that they had trouble finding scholars working in the field who would agree to review the paper, but in any case I would get feedback by late August. Not having received any feedback, I contacted the journal again in early September. Was then told that the feedback would arrive by mid-October, which it finally did. Two reviewers, while making relevant critiques, were also constructive. One of them says that "This could turn in to a meaningful contribution for Qualitative Sociology"; the other is less enthusiastic, but nonetheless states that "The execution [of the manuscripts] can be revised to meet the expectations raised in the [promising] abstract". The first reviewer, with a more negative tone, says stuff like "the author should have more confidence in his or her work rather than anticipating imaginary criticism". No bother commenting on that.
With 2 reviewers willing to accept revisions, the editor nonetheless chose to reject the paper.
Applications in Plant Sciences 8.9
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: We chose this journal in part because the open access fee is much more reasonable than other journals, and we were rewarded with an excellent Editorial staff and publication process. I was impressed by the quality of the reviews, which addressed not only the manuscript but also supplemental information (code documentation). The Editors were quick to respond to inquiry and accommodating about resubmission deadlines and submitting companion papers. The typesetting and publication process was smooth and conducted quickly.
Clinical Psychological Science 6.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 13.0
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Journal of Clinical Investigation 5.0
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Special Education 9.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: They were efficient and sent a lot of feedback but the first reasons listed for reject were focused on failing to conform completely to APA style & then ideological differences - the latter is unacceptable and the former tends to happen when reviewers don't have more substantive comments to make.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were very long, but sadly at the same time not very helpful and at some points it was even evident that the reviewers did not really understand the experiments (which of course could be a result of bad writing!). The decision to reject the manuscript basically boiled down to "the topic is not interesting enough for our journal", which to me is always a very subjective and suboptimal decision criterion. Since the editor did not add anything to the review process, the reviewers get a slightly better rating than the overall experience. But of course the journal is not to blame for the habits of one person and this should not affect your decision to submit your work to this outlet.
International Studies 4.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Drawn back
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General n/a n/a 29.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision not to send out the manuscript was well motivated, but the fact that it took over 4 weeks to "desk reject" a paper seems quite long. To be fair, JEP:G gets a lot of submissions and this might have been bad luck.
Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 4.1
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This is my best yet publishing experience. Very professional, on time, and with e-mail (and reminders) from the editorial office on the whereabouts of the manuscript. Special congrats to the Action Editor on her timely and supportive decision letters.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14.4
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast review process, fair and polite reviewers.
Experimental Neurology 4.9
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Straightforward process, useful reviews and overall a painless process.
IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 38.7
weeks
38.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Nine months for having a rejection!
ISA Transactions 15.4
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The paper has been submitted to reviewers and I received only comments from one reviewer and the comments of the editor. The editor decide to reject the paper for the following reason: 'This is not one of the application focuses of ISA Trans. There are number of journals in this area, as listed in References in the paper. The authors may consider to submit the paper to one of these journals'.

-Why they take more than three months to tell me that the paper is outside of the scope of the journal.


Methods 3.6
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The revision process was fast and problems were solved with the support of the journals office.
Journal of Sport and Social Issues 23.3
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Cardiovascular Research 4.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We responded to EVERY comment made by the reviewers with new data. One of the reviewers made a serious error in their review of the manuscript and new data; they did not read it. I appealed to the editor to examine it. The editor make me wait two additional weeks, then told me "they do not overturn reviewers decisions". I asked the editor if she read the reviewer's comments. I never got a response.
International Journal of Public Administration 11.0
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Got good reviews that provided good direction for revising the manuscript. The reviews I got after the revision reflected more the personal beliefs of the editor and his hand-selected new reviewers than anything objective. I will never submit anything to this journal again.
Emerging Markets Review 22.0
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was slow, but received comments very good.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 15.6
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Educational Technology and Society 17.0
weeks
35.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Hydraulic Research 33.6
weeks
33.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Review process took a long time. Reviewer suggested rejection because of matters that was not the focus of the paper and were not even major.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 6.3
weeks
12.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Hydraulic Research 12.6
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Took a long time. The reviewer advised rejection while it was possible to address their comments.
Journal of Hydro-Environment Research 15.1
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing 11.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Social Development n/a n/a 27.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was not allocated an Editor until the 24th October thus spending nearly four weeks in the system without being considered.
Cell Death and Differentiation 4.0
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: No issues with the way the manuscript was handled by the editor, everything happened in a reasonable timeframe. The quality of the reviews was disappointing though, ranging from questions that do not make sense to asking for in vivo experiments that take >1year to do. A thorough rebuttal letter seems to have worked though.
Polymer 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: the review process as a whole happened in a speedy way
the success of review lies in identifying the appropriate editor and referees