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."