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
Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 11 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Cognitive Systems Research 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Had a bad experience. Although, the paper was rejected after long time, I could not get comments for improving the manuscript.
Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I am sure the paper was coming under the scope of the journal, but, EIC suggested to submit it to another journal of Elsevier publisher.
British Journal of Social Psychology n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: n/a
Surface Science 10.4
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Thermochimica Acta n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Thermochimica Acta n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Thin Solid Films 11.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Thin Solid Films 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Sex Roles 19.3
weeks
34.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I had to thoroughly revise, but do believe that the manuscript improved a lot through the review process. All in all, reviews were fair and useful. The first two review rounds could have been a bit faster in my opinion. I note that this took place during a change of editors for this journal.
Journal of Comparative Economics 8.9
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was efficient and received comments relevant.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 22.9
weeks
22.9
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Review process was very slow. Two reviews were obtained but lacked critical content. The total length of all reviews was less than one page. Despite no major problems being found with the ms. the editors decided to reject it since they did not feel it was a good fit for the journal. The editors should not have sent the paper for review if it was not deemed a good fit. Almost 6 months were wasted with this review process.
Research Policy 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Editor asked ME why I didn't 'remind him' that the paper was under review. Editor didn't bother commenting, and submitted one rather odd review, that he had sat on for many months, as cause for the rejection.
Materials Science and Engineering, B: Advanced Functional Solid-State Materials n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Physica B: Condensed Matter n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Solid State Communications n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Physics Letters A 6.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Chemical Physics Letters n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Composites Science and Technology 11.9
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Polymer 26.1
weeks
26.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Mechanics of Materials n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Materials Letters n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computational Materials Science n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computational Materials Science n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computational Materials Science 10.1
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Current Applied Physics n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Design Studies 27.3
weeks
34.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Applied Thermal Engineering 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer #1: The paper may be accepted for publication by considering the following points
Reviewer #2:It is very interesting and meaningful. But the paper needs to be improved in a more presentable way
Reviewer #3: The results are interesting and meaningful. It has the potential to be published in ATE. But a major revision is required for improvement.
Reviewer #4: some revise
Reviewer #5: After carefully reading and consideration, I don't recommend it being considered to be published.
editor : Therefore I must reject it.
Structural Safety 43.3
weeks
43.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After 10 months of review process they rejected the paper only with one reviewer comments and the reason was this :"conceptual novelty and thematic balance of the research published in the journal as well as the limitation in number of pages permitted yearly by the publisher"
They could reject within only a week by these reasons not 10 months.
Development and Psychopathology 15.1
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Biological Psychiatry 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cognition and Emotion 7.9
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Neuroscience Letters 1.7
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Psychophysiology 3.9
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Cognition and Emotion 10.1
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 8.9
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted