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
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Disputatio 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Journal of Social Philosophy 27.9
weeks
27.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review reports were very useful. My only reason for not giving an overall 'Excellent' rating for this journal is that the review process could be a little bit shorter.
Fisheries Oceanography 8.3
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough reviews from qualified, competent reviewers.
Reasonable response time on original submission.
However, despite highly favorable reviews from both reviewers, editor sent revision out for re-review. Should have been easy (fast) revaluation & response by editor without need to re-review. This process took 2 months longer than necessary and placed excess burden on reviewers.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Geographical Systems n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Sea Research 8.7
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Competent reviews from diverse panel of reviewers. Reasonable response times at all phases of process.
PLoS ONE 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewing process is smooth and valid reasons for rejection were given
Oecologia 14.9
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Nature Communications 10.3
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process took slightly longer than expected, but we received high-quality reviews which substantially improved the manuscript.
Journal of the Royal Society Interface 6.1
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: All reviews were helpful, constructive and thus made publication of our work a reachable goal.
Theoretical Ecology 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 10.0
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very good and efficient process. The reviews were helpful and timely, and they have improved the paper.
Coral Reefs 7.6
weeks
19.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor and reviewer argued that if the revisions did clarified several issues and resulted in a much clearer manuscript, however, they did had serious concerns regarding the novelty of this study relative to the previous one by two of the authors ".
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.
mBio n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It requires a quite short paper with many restrictions but the review was fair. They wrote that the decision was made without reviews because the Editor's initial assessment indicated that the manuscript would not be appropriate for mBio. They suggested mSphere or mSystem for the manuscript.

Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Chemical Engineering Research and Design n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Surface and Coatings Technology 4.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review reports were prompt. The final decision was prompt also.
Linguistics and Philosophy 31.1
weeks
34.6
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Environmental Management 13.6
weeks
36.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Philosophy of Science 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Comments from three (reasonable) referees which motivated helpful changes to the paper.
Philosophy of Science 8.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 20.3
weeks
20.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very slow review process but the reviewers' comments were fair and constructive.
Tectonophysics 13.7
weeks
24.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Marine and Petroleum Geology 34.7
weeks
35.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Structural Geology 7.0
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Marine Geology 21.7
weeks
24.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Asian Journal of Control 10.1
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This journal was fast and responsive. Also, I felt that reviewers are very familiar with the subject.
Philosophy and Public Affairs n/a n/a 55.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 8.9
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick and fair review
Journal of Engineering Design n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biogeochemistry 7.7
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Soil Biology and Biochemistry 9.4
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Neuroscience 3.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: This was the worst publication experience in my career.
Journal of Linguistics 26.7
weeks
42.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good quality reviews, though unfortunately quite slow (typical for linguistics journals). One of the reviewers didn't really understand the point of the paper but the two others were quite good, critical and helpful. Time until final decision took a bit long again.
British Journal of Radiology 6.5
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast review process, especially quick acceptence after revision.
Good quality of the reviewer comments.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology n/a n/a 31.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 18.4
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were detailed but focused principally on style and were contradictory ("thesis should be emphasized more at the outset" / "thesis presented too bluntly... can take more time to develop"), so they did not help in developing the essay.
Annali di Storia dell'Esegesi 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review was detailed and helped by pointing to a missed source on the subject. The editor was quick to respond to questions and the process went very smoothly.