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
Pest Management Science 8.9
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review reports were of high quality and contained many helpful comments. The amount of time for reviews, revisions and editorial decisions was appropriate.
Oikos 11.1
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Animal Ecology 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oikos n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecology n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 5.4
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Environmental and Experimental Botany 6.0
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Fungal Biology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Fungal Ecology 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Dalton Transactions 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Australian Mammalogy 12.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Engineering Research in Africa 11.9
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The experience with JERA is excellent
Archives of Microbiology 7.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Neural Engineering 8.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review reports were not strong to reject the paper. These review reports were not even useful for improving the paper.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW 30.7
weeks
30.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Microbial Ecology 5.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 4.3
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Journal of Neuroinflammation 8.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast process, and reasons for rejection were explained. It was evident that the editor had read the paper.
Nature Communications 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Both reviewers stated, with reasonable justification, that the study was not novel enough for Nature Communications and would possibly be more suitable for a more specialized journal.
Journal of Experimental Botany n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 3.4
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 6.1
weeks
13.2
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Smooth and fast process
Microbiome n/a n/a 88.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Several weeks after submission the editorial office told me (upon request) that they didnt assign an editor to handle the manuscript yet. After 3 months I got an email rejecting the paper as not suitable for the journal, without any further explanation.
Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 12.6
weeks
22.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 19.1
weeks
33.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Psychological Science 4.6
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer comments were constructive and helpful, the rejection came down to perception of statistical power.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7.9
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: I believe the concerns raised by the reviewers could have been handled in a revision if this opportunity had been provided, but the reviewers comments were constructive and helpful.
Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The article (originally a review) was rejected, but was ressubmittable as a "letter to the editor"
Science n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It was fast and painless process.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 10.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: No complaints at all with this journal. Reasonably fast review time and the paper improved in light of the referees' comments. Commentary was constructive, not pedantic. No one even asked me to write out, by hand, how I dummy coded variables (protip y'all: it's 2017...I mean, it's after 1994 and all...so...the software does that..).

Very fast post-acceptance production phase as well--paper was online in about a week after official acceptance. Good copy-editing; the few changes recommended enhanced the text.
A journal ultimately reflects its editor, so Dr. Tight deserves kudos.
Educational Researcher n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Urban Studies 15.1
weeks
21.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent work by the editor who helped us navigate one difficult reviewer.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Uninformative PNAS desk rejection. At least it's fast.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Desk rejection prior to review claiming the paper might be better suited to a specialist journal.