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
Frontiers in Psychology 3.6
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Computer Physics Communications 5.0
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: While I was initially impressed with the speed of the first review round, the second one felt like an eternity, so I contacted the editor about the status of my manuscript. I was very politely informed that they had been having trouble with the first reviewer, had attempted to muster alternative reviewers, and finally had to wait for the first reviewer to come around. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which in this case may have been a disadvantage.
Computer Physics Communications 18.7
weeks
19.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: It took quite a while for the first round to come to a conclusion, so I had almost forgotten about the manuscript. However, I was happy to hear that the manuscript would be accepted after some minor changes. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
Physical Review Letters 5.6
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I originally thought that PRL would offer a lightning-fast reviewing process. While this is partially true, the entire process was drawn out because (1) we submitted right before the busy (and holiday-infested) month of December, (2) because 6 authors had to agree on changes to the manuscript, which meant that revisions took longer, and (3) because one reviewer insisted on a second round. PRL's editorial actions are very well reflected in their online system, so that one is always aware of the whereabouts of the manuscript and reminders having been sent out to the referees. So although the entire process took half a year, I am still impressed.
Langmuir 2.7
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I could not believe when I held two lengthy reviewers' reports in my hands within less than three weeks after submission. The revision was drawn out somewhat by the birth of my daughter, and the second viewing took the reviewers a bit longer. However, the entire process was fast, efficient, of high quality, and agreeable.
Journal of Physics, D: Applied Physics 7.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: With the first round taking 7 weeks and producing 3 referee reports (2 of which were excellent), I feel that the quality of our manuscript was increased considerably due to the requested revision. The referees of the two excellent reports then quickly accepted the revised manuscript with a one-liner. Overall, JPD did a great job of handling the entire process.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 26.1
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Business Research 35.0
weeks
35.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Research Policy 15.0
weeks
25.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was really great, explaining in details what s/he expects and why. I still thank the person until this day. The other reviewer was just arrogant, and was unwilling to accept views that are not his or hers. The editor is sub-par. I feel very sad to say that, but the editor apparently didn't care about the hard work authors invested in the manuscript. He also flipped his guidance. In the first R&R he mentioned things that are critical to fix for acceptance. We fixed all that in the second R&R, but he still rejected us. He rejected our paper despite the fact that one reviewer recommended acceptance.

There are good editors at Research Policy. The lesson learned is to avoid ones that doesn't have empathy.
Strategic Management Journal 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Scripta Materialia 7.9
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took very long time, even though the manuscript was submitted as rapid communications. The next day after we sent a enquire about the review progress to the editor, we received very short review in which rejection of the manuscript was recommended.
Nanoscale n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 13.6
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 13.3
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 6.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Geophysical Research 5.3
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Geophysical Research 12.1
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Personality and Individual Differences 6.3
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 30.3
weeks
46.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was quite slow. The first review round took over half a year which is way too long. The editor had a good touch and the reviewers were knowledgeable.
Geophysical Research Letters 3.3
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I was pleased with the quick but detailed and useful reviews I received from GRL, and the editor was quite efficient in handling the manuscript. Overall a very positive experience.
International Ophthalmology 21.9
weeks
21.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers did not understand the methods and techniques described in the paper.But they still took 4 months for the decision.The first revew should come witin 34 days.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science 5.7
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Nice experience: very detailed and prompt reviews by knowledgeable experts, supported by a very good communication with the editor. After acceptance, the paper was proofread by the publisher (Taylor & Francis), improving the style. The only downside is that it took some time that the paper appears published online, more than it is usually the case with other publishers. But overall the whole process was quicker than I expected.
Erkenntnis 37.4
weeks
42.9
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: 9 months spent reviewing. I received a report only from referee #3.
Journal of Biogeography n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Pest Management Science 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The comments received from reviewers were mostly helpful, but the reason for the rejection (instead of revise and resubmit) was not given.
Astrophysical Journal 6.9
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 2.4
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Philosophy of Science 13.4
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Lubrication Science 47.7
weeks
47.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I got my manuscript accepted without any need for revisions. However, it took 11 months for Lubrication Science to arrive to this verdict. I sent emails to the Associated Editor three times to complain about the long review duration. She would send the apologizing messages back every time.
Sedimentary Geology 5.0
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine 14.6
weeks
22.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
JAMA Psychiatry n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 5.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nucleic Acids Research 2.6
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular Biology and Evolution 9.6
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reasonable comments but slow, probably due to the editors.
Manuscrito 33.0
weeks
33.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Philosophical Psychology 13.0
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: - receiving the reviews after three months is okay, I think.
- some delays were caused by myself as it took me some time to improve my text.
- the reviews were good, most of them included very good comments and questions, the tone was citical but friendly.
- as far as I know, the text was reviewed by philosophers as well as by psychologists
Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters 2.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Diversity and Distributions n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)