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 |
Ageing and Society | 7.6 weeks |
13.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: It was not the fastest process, but I was very content with the way the journal handled the submission and the quality of the reviews. | |||||||
European Journal of Political Research | 8.7 weeks |
13.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Response editor, but no editorial comments or suggestions in r&r letter. | |||||||
Europace | 4.4 weeks |
7.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Functional Ecology | 18.6 weeks |
26.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Journal of Food Engineering | 4.9 weeks |
6.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: I felt that the review process was quite fast and reviewer knew and understood the work. | |||||||
Teachers and Teaching | 12.3 weeks |
38.9 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The reviewers gave me useful, constructive feedback that helped me improve the manuscript. I learned a lot from the reviewers' report. | |||||||
Agronomy for Sustainable Development | 15.4 weeks |
18.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Asian Journal of Control | 12.9 weeks |
16.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Reviewers are very serious, the article on the changes, put forward a lot of constructive comments, while the magazine's review process is convenient and quick. | |||||||
Photonic Network Communications | 18.6 weeks |
22.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Philosophers' Imprint | 30.4 weeks |
30.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Competent reviewers, but took around 7 months before we heard anything. | |||||||
Annals of Internal Medicine | 5.9 weeks |
5.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
Noûs | 11.9 weeks |
11.9 weeks |
n/a | 0 | n/a | 1 (bad) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Email reads: "The editorial workload at present makes it impossible to provide you with detailed comments. We cannot provide comments on rejected papers. We focus rather on arriving at a well-informed judgment without undue delay." | |||||||
Journal of Pragmatics | 9.0 weeks |
9.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 2 (moderate) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Nano Letters | n/a | n/a | 9.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: Fast editorial turnaround. We felt the editors' reasons for rejecting were not unreasonable. | |||||||
Analytical Chemistry | n/a | n/a | 7.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: Fast editorial turnaround, fair assessment for why it didn't fit with the journal. | |||||||
Small | n/a | n/a | 8.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: Fast editorial turnaround, and good suggestions of other more suitable journals. | |||||||
Scientific Reports | 4.1 weeks |
4.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Reviews were mostly fair and had some criticisms that we felt we could address. Unfortunately, the editor rejected completely without opportunity to revise, even though the reviewers seemed open to revisions in their comments. | |||||||
Europe-Asia Studies | 33.9 weeks |
33.9 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected |
Motivation: A very long review process. I received a very strange report that contained an "amalgamation" of two reviews, as it was explained by the editor. It was impossible to judge whether one, two or three persons wrote the review report. The review report itself was very angry and provided no help. Non-transparent reviewing. I will not submit a new paper until the current editorial team will be changed by new editors. | |||||||
International Journal of Food Microbiology | 12.6 weeks |
12.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected |
Motivation: The reviewers did not understand the work. Instead instead of declaring this, they based their arguments in impressions and declared that they did not believe some of the results. Those results were based on published and well-known theoretical tools. I could not answer to them to proof the validity of the work as it was rejected |
|||||||
Global Change Biology | n/a | n/a | 17.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: Though our paper was rejected for too much focus on methodological development, I was satisfied with the overall journal experience. While 2.5 weeks for a desk rejection may seem long, it was submitted shortly before the typical US winter holiday break, and therefore most people would likely hear sooner. | |||||||
Sustainability | 4.9 weeks |
8.4 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Reviewing process was thorough, communication was quick. | |||||||
Applied and Environmental Microbiology | 5.0 weeks |
6.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Cancer Cell International | 6.0 weeks |
10.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications | 13.0 weeks |
23.0 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Analysis and Partial Differential Equations | n/a | n/a | 30.4 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Evolution and Human Behavior | 6.5 weeks |
6.5 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology | 6.5 weeks |
6.5 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
PLoS ONE | 17.4 weeks |
21.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology | 9.9 weeks |
9.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected |
Motivation: The reviewers of this journal seem to be expecting to read only what they believe. If you dare to send a manuscript of a topic even mildly controversial, you will be rejected. | |||||||
Psychological Science | 8.4 weeks |
16.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Editor was careful, balanced, and reasonable. Review reports were satisfactory. Speed of whole process was good. | |||||||
Lancet Infectious Diseases | n/a | n/a | 60.8 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
American Philosophical Quarterly | 6.7 weeks |
6.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected |
Motivation: I got comments from two referees. It didn't take long. One of the referees raised an important objection to my argument. | |||||||
Developmental Science | n/a | n/a | 4.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Journal of Ecology | n/a | n/a | 9.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: The immediate rejection was unfair because the editor has not understood the submission because of a sloppy assessment. I replied but the editor refused to admit his mistake. | |||||||
Acta Materialia | 3.9 weeks |
3.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
Motivation: One reviewer did not appear to have read the manuscript in detail and had generic comments. The second reviewer, however, provided relevant constructive criticism, which we consider fair and has helped strengthen the quality of the material. | |||||||
Studies in Second Language Acquisition | 10.4 weeks |
34.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Two R&R were not justified, the editorial decision could have been made faster. Quality of reviews on the second round was low. Process was generally slow. | |||||||
International Journal of Psychology | 9.9 weeks |
9.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
Cognition | 12.4 weeks |
12.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Given that one reviewer was positive and the other recommended Reject, I believe the process could have benefited from a 3rd reviewer. | |||||||
Academic Radiology | 5.6 weeks |
5.6 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 1 (bad) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Motivation: The submission process itself is very rapid, and peer-review decision was given 40 days after first submission. (Review took only 5 days!) Reviews, however, were very concise and the reviewers didn't seem to have any expertise in manuscript subject, which was primarily the reason to reject the paper as - in editors opinion - it didn't fit the scope of Academic Radiology journal. | |||||||
International Journal of Educational Development | 13.1 weeks |
13.1 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 0 (very bad) |
1 (bad) |
Drawn back |
Motivation: The reviewers were timely, but only one reviewer provided feedback, and this person apparently knew very little about the topic. The editor asked for a revision, but provided no specific suggestions about how to improve the MS. In total, the editor and the reviewer provided 9 sentences of "feedback." |