Submit review Create journal list

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 Dentistry 6.3
weeks		 6.3
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Journal of Endodontics 2.9
weeks		 2.9
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Acta Sociologica 12.4
weeks		 12.4
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Motivation: One review was thorough and helpful.

The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
Sleep and Breathing 4.4
weeks		 8.0
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: This was my first and very positive experience with this journal. The reviewer comments were helpful and helped me to improve the quality of the paper.
Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 15.6
weeks		 15.6
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Motivation: All of my correspondence with the editor was courteous and professional. Although I did not receive the reviews as the reviewers wrote them, the editor provided a brief but specific summary combining their comments. I was able to use this feedback to improve the article to send it elsewhere.
Novum Testamentum 22.0
weeks		 22.0
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: All of my interaction with the editorial assistant of the journal was pleasant and professional, and I have no complaints about the experience.
Novum Testamentum 20.9
weeks		 20.9
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Motivation: Although the manuscript was rejected, I did not receive any comments from the reviewers concerning the reason the manuscript was rejected.
New Testament Studies 8.4
weeks		 8.4
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Motivation: The journal handled the manuscript promptly, courteously, and professionally. The reviewer report that I received interacted with the article in detail and specificity, commenting on its strengths and weaknesses in organization, argument, discussion of primary literature, and interaction with secondary literature. I have consequently been able to revise my article according to all of the comments I received from the reviewer and have submitted it to another journal.
Archiv für Papyrusforschung und Verwandte Gebiete Immediately accepted after 10.1 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: As far as I know, the article wasn't sent for an external anonymous review, and hence I didn't receive any feedback or suggestions for improvement—apart from a few editorial notes and corrections on the already accepted draft. I think the article would have profited from a more rigorous review, not to mention copy-editing (which seemed minimal if at all present—most people on the editorial board are not native English speakers and the publisher is German). Overall, however, the editorial and publishing process was smooth and speedy and the article appeared in print within 7 months of submission—something almost unheard of in humanities journals!
BMJ Open 4.3
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 3 2
(moderate)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Reading Research Quarterly 8.4
weeks		 8.4
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Educational and Psychological Measurement 5.7
weeks		 7.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Ekonomicky Casopis/Journal of Economics n/a n/a 21.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The only reason given for rejection by the editorial staff was "Unfortunately, the topic covered in your manuscript is out of our editorial intentions." Since the journal claims a very broad range of topics of interest, (including mathematical modelling, which my article was about), I have difficulty understanding this basis for rejection. I sense that the journal leans towards the interests of the editors, rather than sticking to a stated field of interest.

Still, the journal process was speedy and I would consider submitting less technical papers to this journal (to see if I am still out of their editorial interests, if for nothing else).
Journal of Geophysical Research 11.1
weeks		 17.6
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The process of submitting an article to JGR was smooth and transparent the whole way. Both the reviewers provided constructive feedback which helped improve the quality of the paper and as the review points were addressed satisfactorily, the revised paper was accepted. The entire process from submitting to revision to acceptance took 5.5 months.
Evolutionary Biology 16.1
weeks		 20.9
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 13.3
weeks		 13.3
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Journal of Healthcare Leadership 16.3
weeks		 18.3
weeks		 n/a 3 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: This was an invited article, with the abstract approved by a section editor. After two rounds of peer-review, the journal decided to no longer proceed with this invitation. The amount of work that went into this paper was immense and as the article was tailored as per the journal's request it will be difficult to submit this article to a different journal. This was an extraordinarily poor experience.
Frontiers in Microbiology 4.0
weeks		 6.4
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Soft Computing 15.2
weeks		 19.5
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: For my manuscript, the reviewers might have spent a lot of time for review. Actually, their comments substantially improved my manuscript and now it started getting citations also and getting followed by the intended research community.
Population and Environment 17.6
weeks		 17.6
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: When I first submitted to this journal the editor gave great recommendations and asked that I resubmit it as a brief. I did this and I got two reviews. One wrote a one line recommendation to add literature and the other just rambled on about why he didn't agree with the argument of the paper. Absolutely terrible.
Bulletin of Volcanology 10.3
weeks		 14.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing and editorial process took three rounds of comments and revision, after this manuscript was submitted and subsequently rejected in 2015, with comments from the same two reviewers who reviewed the new manuscript this year. Especially the process of keeping the editorial decisions in the hands of the Associate Editor, and then have the Executive Editor comment yet another time delayed the process. The process however did ensure a high publication quality, and a very significant involvement of the editors with their journal output, which is the most important.
American Journal of Potato Research 7.9
weeks		 10.6
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The evaluation process was correct. The original manuscript was sent to specialists. The comments were helpfull to improve the final manuscript. The evaluation time was optimal. Sinceresly I recomend this journal.
Bulletin of Volcanology 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Motivation: The rejection in combination with very detailed comments from reviewers allowed us to take the time to revise and improve the manuscript significantly, without too much time pressure.
BMC Plant Biology 6.6
weeks		 6.6
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The paper was rejected due to Editor´s verdict. One of the referees suggested acceptance of the manuscript while the other suggested rejection. The editor decided to take in account the second referee.
Cambridge Review of International Affairs 28.1
weeks		 35.0
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The first review round took over 6 months. However, the editor has been very accomodating in terms of the revisions in response to the reviews. Also, I got an extension of two weeks for submitting the mionor revisions.
Marine Biodiversity 4.3
weeks		 17.1
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: We were in general happy with the pace and level of communication received during the submission and review process. This seems to be an efficiently run journal.

Reviewer comments were fair and in some cases necessitated considerable effort to address within a relatively tight resubmission period, but in doing so I can say the manuscript was improved.
Systematic and Applied Microbiology 9.0
weeks		 9.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Theoretical and Applied Climatology Immediately accepted after 49.3 weeks Accepted (im.)
Genome Biology 5.3
weeks		 6.9
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Cooperation and Conflict 23.1
weeks		 23.1
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Fair criticism, but I had hoped for a major revision/reject&resubmit. Moreover, over 20 weeks for the first review-round is a bit long.
Substance Use and Misuse n/a n/a 35.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Plants 14.3
weeks		 14.3
weeks		 n/a 3 2
(moderate)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 15.0
weeks		 15.0
weeks		 n/a 1 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: It is unfortunate that one should have to wait 15 weeks for a rejection supported by 5 sentences of a review where the reviewer, despite being overall appreciative of the quality of the material presented, quibbles about general matters and criticises the author for not tackling something (i.e. significance of the data presented), which in fact I spent about 1/3 of the article discussing. Did the reviewer actually read the whole article? I'm honestly not sure. This is a shameful addition to the track-record of the journal that boasts rejection of 80% manuscripts sent for a review. Maybe it is not just the quality of drafts but also the reviews that feeds into this, at first sight impressive, competitiveness-rate!
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 4.6
weeks		 4.6
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The Journal offered a speedy, yet rigorous, review procedure. The review wasn't all too brief: the reviewer went into some length with his most accurate summary of the overall argument of the article as well as the data presented therein. All the suggestions for improvement (all mostly minor) were useful and resulted in welcome improvements. There were also various suggestions for grammatical and stylistic improvement, which were useful as well
Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 23.1
weeks		 23.1
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: In terms of quality of the peer-review, BASP has proven to be the most rigorous journal in my publishing experience. For my lengthy analytical article, I was given two 4-page reports written by clearly the top two authorities in my field. (The reports were anonymous but the level of details into which these two scholars went when reviewing my piece clearly was clearly indicative of who was involved.) The reviewers exhibited clear understanding of the argument as well as the materials under analysis; they spotted numerous content errors and inaccuracies and made positive suggestions, all of which resulted in substantial improvements to the piece.
Expository Times Immediately accepted after 11.0 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I would have appreciated to receive some proper 'review' (rather than a mere request to correct one typographical error), which would have improved the content of the article. It seems that ExpT don't offer this—at least in my case they didn't.
Novum Testamentum 19.1
weeks		 19.1
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: There was no actual review included in the decision. I was given a generic announcement of acceptance followed by a brief list of typos. I think it'd have been beneficial if the journal provided a slightly more extended feedback to the author as I think that my article would have profited from some suggestions for minor revisions (as is usual in the review process). Otherwise OK.
Nature Immunology n/a n/a 6.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor was fair and the manuscript was declined with an excellent review from the editors of the journal. So it helped us to improve a lot the manuscript before resubmission
Nature Immunology 0.9
weeks		 0.9
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was well handled by the journal. The problem was more the reviewers who made comments that could be addressed or answered easily. As the reviewer advised the editor that they don't want to see the paper published in this journal, thus any appeal was unlike succeed.
Journal of Social Psychology 21.1
weeks		 43.1
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review experience with this journal was mostly positive. The first round of comments improved the manuscript greatly, as well as the second round. However, my experience is not excellent because the duration to receiving the editorial decision was slightly disproportional with the amount of changes that I had to make.