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
Philosophical Quarterly 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: While the referee was extremely positive, the editor decided to reject anyway (apparently the article was just not to her taste). This has happened a number of times for the journal and it makes me not want to referee for them - if the editor is going to make a decision that overturns that of the referee anyway, what's the point?
Appetite 7.6
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nature 5.9
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Immunology 12.6
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Genetics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Genetics 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Nature Communications n/a n/a 24.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Geophysical Research 7.4
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Forest Ecology and Management 3.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Annals of Forest Science 12.6
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: a long time to the first decision; the editor decision was reject with the possibility of resubmission, which I consider as a bad practice of some journals to boost their indexes; after two months we resubmitted our revised MS to the same journal and our paper was published
Journal of Ecology 9.0
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: the handling time was fair, the review report was a high quality with many excelent suggestions
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 14.9
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Judging from the editorial manager system, it already took a month until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Eventually, only one of two submitted a review, the gist of which was that the manuscript is not suited for the journal. Overall I think the whole process took way too long. The editor should have been able to either make a decision about the suitability of the manuscript before sending it out to reviewers, or be more strict about review deadlines. Waiting almost four months for a response just cost us a lot of time that we could have used more efficiently by submitting to another journal.
Annals of Botany n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oecologia n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Annales de la Société Entomologique de France/International Journal of Entomology 26.0
weeks
32.5
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Ecological Entomology 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Common Market Studies 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Very responsive.
Neuropsychopharmacology 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Addiction Biology 9.3
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Earth and Planetary Science Letters n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Bulletin of Volcanology 20.4
weeks
40.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Kyklos 18.3
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were fair, but were very much oriented towards mainstream economiics.
Journal of Lie Theory 50.9
weeks
50.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The report was useful and very detailed but it took one year
Geology 6.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Tetrahedron Letters 2.9
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Tetrahedron 4.7
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Green Chemistry 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 2.1
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of European Social Policy 18.0
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were not very connected to the topic and the remarks could have been dealt with, but apparently a rejection was recommended.
Ageing and Society 9.4
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Two reviewers were divided and editor did not want to advise a major revision of the paper.
PLoS ONE 12.1
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: It took a long time to assign Editor. Once Editor was assigned, the process was much quicker.
Scientific Reports 10.4
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Oikos n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oecologia n/a n/a 24.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I was very disappointed that the journal sat with the paper for over 3 weeks before alerting us that it would not be sent out to review. I understand limited space is an issue and that editors need to be selective in what articles they will send out to over burdened reviewers, but an immediate rejection should take place in under a week so as to not waste the authors time.
India Review Drawn back before first editorial decision after 38 days Drawn back
Motivation: After submission, 'Editorial Manager' (the submission and tracking portal that this journal uses) updated the status from 'Awaiting Assignment' to 'With Editor' in one day. However, the article then remained with the editor for 5 weeks, and despite two polite emails to the editor, we did not hear back about whether or not the article would even be sent to peer review. On calling the editorial office (this is acceptable in India, though probably not in many other places) the editor told us that the next several issues were full and we'd have to wait at least another month before he could make a decision on whether or not to even send it out for peer review. 9 weeks for a potential desk rejection seemed like a lot, so we withdrew.
Journal of Global Health 12.4
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial assistant was very friendly and helpful along the way, the reviews were good and spot on and overall handling time was relatively brief. I have however got to criticize the submission website. It crashed a number of times while I submitted my manuscript resulting in having to start afresh. Further, it is clunky and not intuitive and generally a huge pain to operate. I was grateful to just be able to submit the revised document via e-mail and not to have to go through the whole pain of the system again.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.0
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: We recently choose PNAS as target journal for a study that represented almost 10 years of work and that we considered important. The manuscript submission on the journal's website was straightforward and all exchanges with the editorial staff very professional.
Our three external reviewers made highly constructive suggestions and the editor appraised the study as "elegant, persuasive and appropriate for publication". From this experience, we can highly recommend PNAS for papers destined to a broad audience.