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
Ecology 39.1
weeks
60.8
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was sent out for review 2 times and then rejected. The second round of reviews were very favorable (they were easy to address for another journal), but it was rejected for a reason that was unclear (after about 1.5 years of review)
Applications in Plant Sciences 9.7
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I have been very satisfied with handling, processing, and review of manuscripts with Applications in Plant Sciences. The editorial staff is very communicative and reviews are responsive and thorough. Internal and outside reviewers were well selected and provided comments that greatly improved my manuscript. The staff has worked with me to improve style and layout of figures and tables that greatly improves the visual presentation of the content. The editorial staff also regularly promotes published content for broader dissemination in professional and social media.
Cladistics 12.7
weeks
12.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Systematic Biology 2.1
weeks
2.1
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Trends in Ecology and Evolution n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 4.6
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Editors and reviewers know the topic quite well
Nature Geoscience n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 26.0
weeks
27.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Archiv der Mathematik 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations 30.4
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
International Mathematics Research Notices 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: After 6 months we got two reviews saying that the paper is very good, but both proposed to reject it as too specialized
Communications in Partial Differential Equations n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the London Mathematical Society 17.4
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Illinois Journal of Mathematics Drawn back before first editorial decision after 456 days Drawn back
Motivation: The journal did not react to my mail during several months, then they answered that the referee does not respond to their mails for more than 6 months. We decided to withdraw the submission (after a wating time of 15 months).
Integral Equations and Operator Theory 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Materials Chemistry and Physics 18.4
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Social Forces 15.9
weeks
44.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good experience overall
Wildlife Research 10.6
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Biogeosciences 18.3
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Elife n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: eLife promises to work on initial submissions within a week. It took a month. They also adversitse their Journal with a 'painless' review process. Then the paper was rejected with the following (very dismissive) )sentence:

"While perhaps for specialists (modelers) this study may have particular value, for us it lacks impact as it does not fundamentally change current thinking. We did not see anything unexpected or anything that would lead to a dramatic shift in thinking about pathways, inhibitors, etc. Certainly you provide some interesting insight, but nothing that feel is impactful enough to be reviewed favorably."

And now the fun thing comes: There was no modeling in the paper at all! So it looks either the paper was never read, or the handling Editor knows so little about Computational Biology that he even confuses its most basic principles. In both cases (not reading or being completely outside the topic) - I doubt he is really in the position to use such strong language.
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 25.7
weeks
25.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reason for rejection was formulated in general terms that do not warrant a waiting period of half a year.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 9.3
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
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.