All reviews - Page 1

All reviews received by SciRev

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome
Journal of Business Ethics	n/a	n/a	10.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Heat and Mass Transfer	n/a	n/a	4.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science	4.6 weeks	10.1 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science	Motivation: Constructive remarks from the reviewers. Editor efficient and professional.
Science	n/a	n/a	17.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Science	Motivation: Very long desk rejection process, zero personalised feedback. Waste of time.
Future Generation Computer Systems	18.9 weeks	18.9 weeks	n/a	1	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Future Generation Computer Systems	Motivation: The manuscript was submitted on 1st May on a Special Issue. The outcome of the review process was expected on 31st July. On 28th August, we sent an email to the guest Editor asking for some news without any reply. On 8th September, we sent an email to the Editor in Chief, who imformed us about the rejection with only one attached review.
Industry and Higher Education	10.1 weeks	11.6 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Industry and Higher Education	Motivation: Good and timely handling of the manuscript. Competent reviewers and a communicative and devoted editor.
International Journal of Energy Research	n/a	n/a	30.4 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Energy Research	Motivation: In this journal they follow, as I later discovered, the following procedure: The editor FIRSTLY, without relying on scientific reviewers specialized in the field, attempts to ascertain the originality of the the manuscript. For this, he uses the on-line application called Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/), that analyzes the text and performs web-based searches for identifying parts of the manuscript coincident with already published material. Mine was rejected for having an index of coincidence greater than 20 % (it was 24 % as I later discovered). The only problem is that this included and added up a) Common, specialized clauses, such as e.g. "fluidized bed reactor" and many others, and b) The list of literature cited. (Ithenticate has an option to disallow that part, but it was "on" when analyzing my paper.) Being an specialized paper, both factors explained the high index of coincidence. Otherwise, neither in methods nor in subject of research nor results, Ithenticate detected anything coincident.
Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences	16.7 weeks	16.7 weeks	n/a	4	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
Journal of Biogeography	n/a	n/a	8.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
PeerJ	2.4 weeks	11.6 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
PeerJ	Motivation: Overall quality of reviews and journal submission system is excellent. Editor was not a subject area expert and deferred to nitpicking of reviewers too much, requiring multiple rounds of review that could have been more efficiently handled.
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics	5.4 weeks	7.9 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics	Motivation: Overall, very happy with quality of reviews and review process. However, the journal's office policy/submission system can be improved. Currently, G3 has two options for revise and resubmit. The first allows 30 days to revise and does not require entering metadata for the article again. The second allows 90 days to revise but requires the author to manually re-enter all of the metadata required for a new submission.
Nature Microbiology	n/a	n/a	4.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Biology Letters	5.0 weeks	11.4 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Biology Letters	Motivation: The Editor's letter appeared justified but was simply a summary of the Reviewer's comment, which were unfortunately partly technically wrong (especially for critical aspects that led to the rejection). This is too often the case in the peer-review process that a fully justified response (with several references backing up the author argument) to the Reviewers comments is simply judged "not convincing" or "not correct" by the annonymous Reviewer (who does not have to back up his/her statement by any means). Expert Editor are needed to have an independent psoition over the paper.
Numerical Heat Transfer. Part A	4.3 weeks	8.7 weeks	n/a	1	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics	8.6 weeks	8.6 weeks	n/a	1	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy	n/a	n/a	10.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy	Immediately accepted after 4.6 weeks						Accepted (im.)
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy	Motivation: This was my first submitted paper in this journal. The review process was completely good and the review process lasted about 1 month.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy	24.7 weeks	24.7 weeks	n/a	20	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews	22.1 weeks	22.1 weeks	n/a	10	3 (good)	3 (good)	Rejected
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews	Motivation: My paper was checked and reviewed by 10 different reviewers, and it was shocking for me to keep satisfy all of them at the first stage. 9 of reviewers recommended revisions (5 recommended acceptance), and only one reviewer advice rejection, and the paper was rejected.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews	n/a	n/a	5.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews	Motivation: I read several previous published papers in the topic of my paper in this journal. But, the paper was rejected by editor without any reason.
Building Simulation	18.1 weeks	18.1 weeks	n/a	2	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
Nature Methods	n/a	n/a	12.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Buildings	4.9 weeks	6.7 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Buildings	Motivation: Very responsive. Submission system is well implemented. Editing was very fast.
Social Science Research	22.7 weeks	22.7 weeks	n/a	2	2 (moderate)	3 (good)	Rejected
Social Science Research	Motivation: Unfortunately, one out of two reviewers did not understand the empirical approach at all (fixed effects). However, helpful comments regarding the theoretical framework were given by the editor.
Kyklos	n/a	n/a	2.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Kyklos	Motivation: To be honest, this is the most specific and constructive rejection letter I have ever seen. Kyklos editor introduced some papers in my research field, even gave summary and links. Furthermore, editor even recommended me specialized journal to submit my paper. Really appreciate that efforts ! Guide author very clearly and further the research, VERY HELPFUL!
Human Brain Mapping	0.3 weeks	0.3 weeks	n/a	2	0 (very bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Applied Physics Letters	5.7 weeks	5.7 weeks	n/a	1	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
Applied Physics Letters	Motivation: The one reviewer comments were on an ad hoc basis. The editor and reviewer failed to provide a convincing reason to reject. No comments on the scientific merit of the paper. I will not even bother to submit a rebuttal because I know it will take more time.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture	17.4 weeks	21.7 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Social Forces	12.3 weeks	12.3 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Social Forces	Motivation: The reivewers' comments sound as if there have been a few misunderstandings regarding the method used (fixed effects rather than OLS). Essentially the reviewers seem to be recommending to use the same method as we already did but obviously did not understand FE. For this reason, we were wondering if these methodological misunderstandings were a decisive factor in the negative editorial decision on our manuscript and if so, whether the editorial team would consider consulting another reviewer. However, the editorial team - unfortunatenly - declined to consider another reviewer.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology	n/a	n/a	7.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Journal of Applied Poultry Research	10.0 weeks	16.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Physica Scripta	13.4 weeks	13.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Physica Scripta	Motivation: Extremely helpful and proactive editor
Physical Review Letters	6.0 weeks	6.0 weeks	n/a	2	2 (moderate)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Physical Review Letters	Motivation: One of the referees showed that they did not understand how things work in nonlinear quantum optics and requested a type of analysis that had already been shown to not work in my manuscript. They noted that some of the results were remarkable, but even so should have been culled from the manuscript. The other made demands that have never been made on any published quantum optics paper, seemingly not realising that a cavity chooses the modes of interest and only these need to be analysed. Their demand breaks with decades of practice. Even so, this referee recognised that all the PRL criteria except that of broad interest were satisfied. The criterion of broad interest is, in general, interpreted very badly by referees. I suspect they confuse broad interest with their own interests. Looking at what actually gets published, it is impossible to form a clear picture of what this broad interest is.
European Sociological Review	9.6 weeks	22.0 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
European Sociological Review	Motivation: Very fast review process of about 2 months for each revision round. Nevertheless, after conditional acceptance 2 new reviewers assigned, who came up with some additional thoughts
Clinical Rheumatology	n/a	n/a	5.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Socio-Economic Review	22.3 weeks	22.3 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Socio-Economic Review	Motivation: This wasn't the quickest review, and then we got two reviews, one of whom only gave the paper a cursory look ("I'm not convinced" without giving reasons), the other of which asked for a few technical clarifications. The editor did not mention how this translates into a rejection.
Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables	n/a	n/a	9.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables	Motivation: Before the submission of my paper to ADNDT, just one week I have received rejection. The editor told me that using of publicly available computer codes do not meet the journal criteria. Despite, I checked many published papers in the same time have the same codes which I used.
Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena	5.3 weeks	14.9 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management	14.3 weeks	14.9 weeks	n/a	1	3 (good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management	Motivation: After I received the first review (minor revisions), I contacted the editor to ask whether it was possible to take a decision regarding acceptance or rejection in the next round in less than a month time: I asked if, if I submit on July, 24, can I get a decision by half August? To my surprise, they answered yes. Finally, I resubmitted the revision on July, 13 and got an acceptance on July, 17. I really feel they stepped up the second round because of my request, which is excellent service. The faster timing will allow me to submit my PhD thesis on the date agreed with my supervisor, a target which I had already virtually given up.
Journal of Physics, D: Applied Physics	11.7 weeks	12.3 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Journal of Physics, D: Applied Physics	Motivation: The initial review process took very long. One of the reviewer has seemingly ignored the paper for several weeks. The paper was eventually accepted.