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
ACS Nano n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7.1
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Molecular Ecology n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected without being set to reviewers by an editor whose field of expertise if different of that of the study. The editor comments mischaracterized the scope and results of the study. The paper was finally published in a journal with a higher impact factor than Molecular Ecology, without major changes in the results and conclusions.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was constructive and fair. The second reviewer, however, was no constructive and seems to have not understood the paper. The comments were irrelevant and not substantive.
Nature Chemistry n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Development Studies 16.1
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Both reviews said they liked the paper and the comments were small things to fix. The editor even mention in his rejection that both reviews liked the paper but that because of the large amount of submitting they received they rejected it. I was able to make the changes the reviews suggested in same day and submitted to another journal. It seems the editor should have desk rejected the paper if he felt the topic was not a match for the paper, but honestly I am not sure why the paper was rejected.

Also one of the reviewers clearly did not read the paper as his comments made little to no sense.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 21.4
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Biological Invasions 13.6
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Communications n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The message they sent was: "I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 0.6
weeks
0.6
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Extremely fast review and production process
Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 3.1
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Good expertise of the referees, fast overall review and production process.
Thin Solid Films 3.6
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Good referees expertise and fast communication.
Biomass and Bioenergy Drawn back before first editorial decision after 616 days Drawn back
Motivation: Our manuscript was under review in Biomass & Bioenergy for over 21 months without a first decision. Contacting the journal manager or editor did not help speed up the process. Things seemed to move forward but the process was never completed. After 21 months we withdrew the manuscript. For the last two months the manuscript was “under editor evaluation”. According to the journal manager, the associate editor had received all the needed reviewer reports. However, he was unable to make a decision. We got no response to our attempt to contact him.
Consciousness and Cognition 7.5
weeks
8.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 20.1
weeks
27.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This long-term experiment was very complex, and this journal required a stringent synthesis of the most important outcomes. It was not easy to present 30 years of data in a reduced number of figures and table allowed by the journal. However, I believe that the final results was rewarding. Also the editorial office devoted much effort in evaluating wether this manuscript was prepared in compliance with the instructions for authors.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 22.3
weeks
22.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: It took 5 months for the review to be completed. At the end I received 5 short paragraphs in all from 2 reviewers, of which 2 paragraphs contained the summaries of the manuscript written by the reviewers. In the remaining 3 short paragraphs, it seemed that the reviewers missed the main thrust of the paper and directed their criticism at secondary aspects. Although this criticism was fair, and was addressed in a version submitted later, I do not believe that it needed 5 months of review, which wasted significant time. As I asked for an update at around 4.5 months after submission, I am not sure if the review would have taken longer had I not asked.
Angewandte Chemie n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The response was "unfortunately we have to inform you that it is not suitable for publication in Angewandte Chemie as the journal publishes only reviews, minireviews, highlights, essays, and short communications (see our "Notice to Authors" on the web). Your manuscript, on the other hand, is a full-length original paper and should thus be submitted to an appropriate journal."
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 13.6
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Social Politics 45.0
weeks
45.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
World Development 32.1
weeks
32.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Valuable comments of one of the reviewers helped to address the gaps of the paper. We resubmitted the paper to another journal.
Journal of Personality 7.7
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: My manuscript was handled in a timely and professional manner. I thought the reviewers and the editor provided thoughtful suggestions and reasonable critiques.
Journal of Consumer Psychology n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Human Behavior n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biology Letters 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nature Communications 9.7
weeks
52.3
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After the 2nd round of review, the Editor decided to reject the manuscript. Following this we requested an appeal (on December 20th, 2016) given the positive comments of Referees 1 and 2, and our feeling that Referee 3 was biased and that his only interest was to see that a competing hypothesis be not published. The Editor accepted our appeal request on March 3, 2017 and sent again to the same reviewers the revised manuscript. The 3 referees decline the offer to review again the manuscript and the Editor recruited other 2 referees. As alternative for Reviewer #3 chose Referee #5 that is not only a member of the same institute of Referee 3, but he is also part of the same working group: thus, the probability that Referee 5 would have the same conflict of interest as Referee 3 was surely very high. Infact referee 5 suggested rejection and the Editor despite the enthusiastic comments of Referee 4 declined publication of our manuscript .
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 4.7
weeks
4.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Chemistry of Materials 11.7
weeks
24.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Applied Catalysis, A: General n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Chemical Engineering Journal 9.3
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
ACS Catalysis n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Materials Chemistry n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Angewandte Chemie 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Applied Catalysis, B: Environmental 5.9
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Applied Physics Letters n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Advanced Functional Materials n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Applied Catalysis, A: General 6.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Translational Psychiatry 7.9
weeks
30.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The submission process was easy and relatively fast. The reviews were reasonable and timely, particularly in the revision process.
Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 75.0
weeks
75.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: For such a short article, more than a year and a half to review seems excessive to me. On the plus side the article was accepted, so I am happy with the final outcome.
Neurobiology of Stress 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Although not the result we were hoping for, the review process was fast, the reviews were reasonable and the editorial decision was fair.