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 Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 13.6
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Asian Journal of Control 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Journal of Happiness Studies 24.0
weeks
56.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: It was a long process, but overall the feedback was positive and improved the quality of the document.
Administration and Society 9.3
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Significant changes needed to be done to the manuscript, but after doing this it was accepted by the reviewers with minor revision.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.9
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were helpful and fair, but the review process took longer than most journals.
MicrobiologyOpen 5.3
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast and efficient process. A few lines from the Editor showing that the paper was at least quickly read.
Journal of Insect Conservation 8.9
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Asian Journal of Control 8.9
weeks
34.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: First review process for my paper takes only two months but the revised version was held for more than 6 months. I have found that it was happened for a special issue which made them very busy. In Overall, I like this journal.
Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8.4
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Insect Conservation and Diversity 10.9
weeks
20.9
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Asian Journal of Control n/a n/a 42.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Hydrology 18.1
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Asian Journal of Control 12.1
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 6 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review comment showed that the paper has been investigated by the professional expert in the topic of the paper. Their constructive comments help us to enhance the paper quality greatly.
Asian Journal of Control 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Mathematische Annalen 52.7
weeks
52.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I feel that waiting over one year for a rejection and not getting a review is not appropriate.
Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 64.4
weeks
64.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Political Studies 21.9
weeks
21.9
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: I received three reviews. Two were very enthusiastic suggesting accepting the manuscript after minor revisions, the third was more critical, pointing to problems and missing points that were actually addressed in the manuscript.
ACS Chemical Neuroscience 1.9
weeks
1.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Population Studies n/a n/a 247.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature 8.4
weeks
31.9
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The actual review process was fine but the editorial handling of our manuscript was not as I would expect it from a journal that is "commited to rapid editorial decisions and publications" as stated in Nature's peer-review policy. The decision on our second revision was "Accept after minor changes" which only included to ensure that the manuscript does fit within the guidelines. As our manuscript was already formatted according to the guidelines, we stated this in our answer letter and submitted the manuscript again without changing a single sentence in the manuscript itself. Nevertheless, the editor needed again more than two months to accept our manuscript. In addition, during the first four weeks after acceptance nothing happend at all until I asked them when we will receive our proofs. Only after this inquiry I received another e-mail stating that our manuscript had now been passed to the production which needed again roughly two months to finally publish our article. All in all, I was fairly disappointed about the manuscript handling of such a prestigious journal.

Autophagy 14.1
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Initial review a bit long. Constructive comments however that substantially improved the paper.
Functional Ecology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 1.9
weeks
2.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Functional Ecology 9.6
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Nature n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Almost 4 weeks to immediate rejection, with generic rejection message (manuscript not given sufficiently high priority during the initial screening process).
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 11.4
weeks
31.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Journal of Communication Disorders 23.7
weeks
66.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Professional editorial process and expert reviewers. I would recommend JCD.
Forest Ecology and Management 8.3
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process on For Ecol Manage is generally fast. The first Editor assessment is very fast, less than a week. You are informed about the review steps, and have the feeling that editorial work is really fast.
eNeuro 3.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I thought the review cycles were fairly rapid. I found the comments from the first round of reviews to be thoughtful and pertinent, and although additional experiments were required to address the reviewers' comments, those additional experiments substantially improved the manuscript. Overall, I thought the reviewing editor did an excellent job in handling this manuscript throughout the review process.
Journal of Neuroscience 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Fast turnaround, and the reasons for rejection were stated clearly. Although we would have preferred a different outcome, the process was painless and fair.
PLoS ONE 23.3
weeks
23.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The paper was under review for almost six months and we only received the comments from one reviewer. Those were good but it was not the speedy review process we had expected. The editorial office was then super quick to make a decision.
Process Biochemistry 6.5
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The revision process was very smooth and very quick. I highly recommend this journal
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 13.4
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The first review round took slightly longer than promises, otherwise perfect.
Review of Income and Wealth 44.1
weeks
44.1
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: 44 weeks for knowing that the paper is rejected!
Molecular Neurobiology 17.4
weeks
17.5
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I will do my best!
British Journal of Surgery 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Liver International n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)