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 12.3
weeks
16.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite rapid considering the length of our manuscript. Reviewer comments were constructive and well-articulated; the quality of our manuscript was very much improved after taking those comments into consideration. The formatting of the reviewer comments occasionally made it difficult to decipher them. Slightly clearer formatting, which separates out the different points a bit more, may, therefore, be helpful in the future.
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical 10.9
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical is a great journal in the field of parasitology and its acceptance processes is fast and satisfactory.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 3.9
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.7
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Across Languages and Cultures 49.0
weeks
49.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The editors were helpful, but the review process took much longer than the projected 4 to 6 months. After almost a year, only one of the reviews had any comments to make, and they were rather superficial. I realise this is not the journal's fault but rather a defect of the peer review process in general, but it nevertheless needs to be stated.
Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 12.6
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The overall handling of the manuscript was good. However, the first round of reviews took a quite substantial time and all reviews were very short. Nevertheless, the quality of reviews was good, the reviewers had some good points, and the final version of manuscript is better than the original.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10.8
weeks
12.8
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Biogeography 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The Chief Editor wrote "Your manuscript has been examined editorially and I regret that I am rejecting it without formal review". This was followed by the comments of the Subject Editor referring to that "the manuscript has received three excellent reviews, recommending either ‚reject’ (Reviewer 1) or ‚requiring substantial revision and re-re-view’ (Reviewers 2 & 3). The reviewers´ comments were not provided to us. We had to ask for these and it took some days to get them. The comments were not available in the online system either.
Soldagem & Inspeção 33.1
weeks
37.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: It took almost a year to be published online. Perhaps more than one year to the printed version.
Materials and Design n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Land Economics 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: I appreciate the comments that the two reviewers gave.
ACS Catalysis 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We received reports of 3 reviewers. 2 reviewers made positive comments about the importance of our work and suggested some very useful revisions to strengthen the manuscript. Both of them recommend acceptance after some revisions (First reviewer - mijor, second - major). However, third reviewer totally misunderstood our work and made comments which were "strange" as well as claimed we "did no do anything new" and offered rejection of our work. The editor (Huimin Zhao) rejected our work immediately without giving any explanation.
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We sent our manuscript at 8 AM and received a response within hours, I remember the decision letter stating that our manuscript almost "caught their attention". Our manuscript ended up being accepted in a similar journal.
Clinical Science n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Blood 0.0
weeks
0.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: It was quite fast process.
Moreover, 2 out of 3 review's comments are exceptionally valuable to improve my future research.
Human Reproduction 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Topical and constructive reviews, fast turnaround -- overall a very good experience.
Nucleic Acids Research 2.9
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Creativity and Innovation Management 28.2
weeks
57.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Long review times. Encouraging editor.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 10.0
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Scientific Reports 9.9
weeks
42.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Scientific Reports advertises fast decision and constructive peer review, but the process is anything but. As other reviews here indicate, each submission requires a 2 week long quality check before it is sent to the editor. If one minute error is found, you have to start over. After the long process of waiting for review reports to come back (~2-3 months each time), the reviewers were clearly not knowledgeable about the subject matter. Comments from one reviewer in particular were not constructive and complained that the paper was not scientifically sound without providing justification. After two rounds of revision and satisfying two out of three reviewers, the editor decided to send the manuscript to a fourth reviewer who ultimately rejected it. Reviewers complained that the findings of the manuscript are not noteworthy even though the journal explicitly states not to make judgement on significance.
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast editorial decision. Rejected based on lack of compelling conceptual advance.
Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 15.3
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)
Rejected
Water Resources Research 15.3
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ecology and Evolution 12.3
weeks
24.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process improve our work, but the entire process is too long.
Materials Chemistry and Physics 41.6
weeks
46.0
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was submitted on October, 1st, 2016. In December the referees for this paper was found. In June, 2017 I inquired about the manuscript status to the editor and found that one of the referees has disappeared. Therefore the editor in Chief accepted the manuscript based on the one review and his personal impression on the paper. Overall process took too long due the missing review from one of the referees.
Higher Education Research and Development 0.9
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was great - good communication and prompt feedback.
Energy Policy 28.7
weeks
31.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review reports were detailed and communication was clear. However, I did wait a long time for peer review feedback, and I only heard back after reminding the editor.
Biology Letters 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The duration was really long and one of the two reviews was batched (the other review was correct). I would like to say that I have no problem with being rejected (rejection is the rule in Academia), but I want to denounce the low quality of this journal (or for being fair, my bad experience with this journal.
Research in Higher Education n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 23.3
weeks
31.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journals of Gerontology, Series B 7.3
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.0
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process for this journal was very time-efficient and the editorial office was clear in their email communication. Having published a protocol with the journal, we are pleased the results paper will appear in the same journal.
Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena Drawn back before first editorial decision after 90 days Drawn back
Motivation: The submitted manuscript apparently was sent to several reviewers. However, no suitable referee could be found within three months. While finding a referee might indeed be a difficult task in some cases, I would have appreciated a note from the editorial office regarding the status of my manuscript after such a long time.
Instead, information was only given after I contacted the editorial team myself. I also never received any answer from the editor himself (who is, in fact, unknown to me up to this date).
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 11.7
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Constructive remarks from the reviewers. Serious handle by the editor.
However, the editing process did not respect the mathematics typo I used and degrade it.
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer n/a n/a 67.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Physics, B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I think the editor decision was fair and reasonable, because we provided new results but of not interested ions enough to the scientific society.
Analytical Chemistry n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Migration 13.4
weeks
31.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Remote Sensing of Environment Immediately accepted after 93.9 weeks Accepted (im.)