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
BMC Research Notes Drawn back before first editorial decision after 157 days Drawn back
Motivation: I submitted the manuscript on August 2016 and in the beginning of December I sent a inquiry to the editorial office since I had not heard anything. They sent me back what looked like a form letter saying they were going to look into it. It was concerning that on the website it still showed "under editorial review." So in effect they never sent it out for review. I never heard anything back so I inquired again the beginning of January 2017. They sent me back what looked like a form letter saying they were going to look into it. It was concerning that on the website still showed "under editorial review." At that point I explained if I didn't hear back that it was sent out for review I would pull it and submit it elsewhere. I never heard anything back and it still remained under "editorial review." I pulled the manuscript and have submitted it elsewhere. I have published in BMC Public Health and BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth and had good experiences. As a result of this experience I will never submit an article nor review for BMC journals or recommend them to my colleagues.
Population, Space and Place 16.6
weeks
30.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was long, but the paper was significantly improved. The comments were fair and extremely detailed.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reason(s) for rejection were extremely vague, and didn't set this paper apart from others recently published in the same journal. I got the impression that the editor was biased against the work because it was a theoretical paper based on a theory they didn't like.
Grazer Philosophische Studien 24.0
weeks
24.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The review was of good quality, critical but friendly in tone. Of course, I don't agree in every aspect with the offered critique. However, after six months I expected at least two reviews as a basis for rejection or acceptance. Therefore, in sum, the overall experience is more negative than positive.
Waste and Biomass Valorization 14.3
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Wear 19.6
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Note that this submission was for a special issue, so that I would not consider the processing times typical for the journal.
Journal of Applied Econometrics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejected for lack of interest by editor.
Deep-Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 45.0
weeks
45.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
FEMS Microbiology Ecology 5.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 15.7
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Global Business and Organizational Excellence n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection due to subject not being compatible with journal's interests.
Gender, Work and Organization n/a n/a 25.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejected due to methodological approach incompatible with journal's interest.
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Short but adequate justification.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Annals of Regional Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection due to article's subject, journals in other fields suggested.
Economic Development Quarterly n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast editorial rejection due to article's subject, journal suggestions offered.
American Journal of Public Health n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection because article was publicly available as working paper, violating submission rules.
Applied Economics n/a n/a 377.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Submission fee excessive, lack of response to status requests, article not sent to referees and editorial report justifying rejection was short, mediocre and wrong after holding the article for more than one year.
Journal of Time Series Analysis n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editorial rejection review was precise, knowledgeable and respectful.
Annals of Surgery 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Environmental Pollution 7.4
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Standards in Genomic Sciences 7.6
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were ok but could have been sent to reviewers knowing more about the scientific subjects - most critics were about adhering to journal standards, figures etc. First round of review took a bit too long.
Journal of Bacteriology 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Rejection because of critics from 2 out of 3 reviewers. The reviews were detailed, although not everything was well understood methode-wise. One week less would have been ok, but 7 weeks for rejection is quite long and an annoying loss of time.
Computer Physics Communications 8.7
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
International Journal of Bilingualism 9.1
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Editor was balanced and reasonable. Review report was good. Second round was quite fast. The single less satisfactory aspect was that only one reviewer was consulted.
Central European Journal of Public Policy 16.1
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: CEJPP was very professional in this handling my manuscript. The editor-in-chief even emailed me to notify me that the second reviewer had not delivered their report on time. The journal appointed a reviewer immediately and the entire process was very expedient.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14.9
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very transparent with the editor being very open about the time schedule. The reviews I received were of good quality and helpful. The entire process was swift.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3.4
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Editorial decision was made within 2 days and first review round was very quick. reviewer's comments were very much relevant for improving the further quality of the manuscript. In short, the whole process was very quick and efficient.
Austrian Journal of Political Science 19.4
weeks
25.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This was a submission for a special issue. Everything went smoothly, and I got excellent feedback form the editors, as well as good and constructive comments from the reviewers.
Frontiers in Psychology 3.6
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Computer Physics Communications 5.0
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: While I was initially impressed with the speed of the first review round, the second one felt like an eternity, so I contacted the editor about the status of my manuscript. I was very politely informed that they had been having trouble with the first reviewer, had attempted to muster alternative reviewers, and finally had to wait for the first reviewer to come around. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which in this case may have been a disadvantage.
Computer Physics Communications 18.7
weeks
19.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: It took quite a while for the first round to come to a conclusion, so I had almost forgotten about the manuscript. However, I was happy to hear that the manuscript would be accepted after some minor changes. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
Physical Review Letters 5.6
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I originally thought that PRL would offer a lightning-fast reviewing process. While this is partially true, the entire process was drawn out because (1) we submitted right before the busy (and holiday-infested) month of December, (2) because 6 authors had to agree on changes to the manuscript, which meant that revisions took longer, and (3) because one reviewer insisted on a second round. PRL's editorial actions are very well reflected in their online system, so that one is always aware of the whereabouts of the manuscript and reminders having been sent out to the referees. So although the entire process took half a year, I am still impressed.
Langmuir 2.7
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I could not believe when I held two lengthy reviewers' reports in my hands within less than three weeks after submission. The revision was drawn out somewhat by the birth of my daughter, and the second viewing took the reviewers a bit longer. However, the entire process was fast, efficient, of high quality, and agreeable.
Journal of Physics, D: Applied Physics 7.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: With the first round taking 7 weeks and producing 3 referee reports (2 of which were excellent), I feel that the quality of our manuscript was increased considerably due to the requested revision. The referees of the two excellent reports then quickly accepted the revised manuscript with a one-liner. Overall, JPD did a great job of handling the entire process.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 26.1
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Business Research 35.0
weeks
35.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Research Policy 15.0
weeks
25.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was really great, explaining in details what s/he expects and why. I still thank the person until this day. The other reviewer was just arrogant, and was unwilling to accept views that are not his or hers. The editor is sub-par. I feel very sad to say that, but the editor apparently didn't care about the hard work authors invested in the manuscript. He also flipped his guidance. In the first R&R he mentioned things that are critical to fix for acceptance. We fixed all that in the second R&R, but he still rejected us. He rejected our paper despite the fact that one reviewer recommended acceptance.

There are good editors at Research Policy. The lesson learned is to avoid ones that doesn't have empathy.
Strategic Management Journal 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Scripta Materialia 7.9
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took very long time, even though the manuscript was submitted as rapid communications. The next day after we sent a enquire about the review progress to the editor, we received very short review in which rejection of the manuscript was recommended.