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 |
| Internet and Higher Education | 5.0 weeks |
5.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
| iForest | 8.0 weeks |
13.3 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Accepted |
| Geoforum | 8.4 weeks |
15.6 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: I believe it was a relatively quick process, and the comments of the reviewers made sense. | |||||||
| Central European Journal of Public Policy | 4.7 weeks |
7.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: In overall it was quite good collaboration. The communication between author and editor was on time, no delays in answers. The reviews were helpful and constructive. The manuscript submission system was very helpful in order to provide the account for the funding institution. | |||||||
| Philosophical Psychology | 24.1 weeks |
44.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Journal of Theological Studies | 7.1 weeks |
7.1 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: The journal editor was prompt and courteous, and the review process was particular speedy—less than 2 month, which is almost unheard of in the guild. The review was on the brief side and not particularly conducive to meaningful revisions (more along the lines of comments rather than concrete suggestions), but still helpful. A downside of the publishing (rather than the review) process is the fact that the journal has only two issues per year, so the pipeline is incredibly long (it can take up to 1.5 yrs for an article to appear). | |||||||
| PLoS ONE | 15.0 weeks |
18.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Lost editor during summer, although PLoS stated that the new editor would take delay into account, it stool took 15 weeks before we had an outcome. Review reports were brief but fair. Second round of reviewing went faster. | |||||||
| British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | 9.0 weeks |
9.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
| Disputatio | 13.0 weeks |
13.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected |
| Journal of Social Philosophy | 27.9 weeks |
27.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: The review reports were very useful. My only reason for not giving an overall 'Excellent' rating for this journal is that the review process could be a little bit shorter. | |||||||
| Fisheries Oceanography | 8.3 weeks |
17.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Thorough reviews from qualified, competent reviewers. Reasonable response time on original submission. However, despite highly favorable reviews from both reviewers, editor sent revision out for re-review. Should have been easy (fast) revaluation & response by editor without need to re-review. This process took 2 months longer than necessary and placed excess burden on reviewers. |
|||||||
| International Journal of Geographical Information Science | n/a | n/a | 5.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Journal of Geographical Systems | n/a | n/a | 4.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Journal of Sea Research | 8.7 weeks |
12.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Competent reviews from diverse panel of reviewers. Reasonable response times at all phases of process. | |||||||
| PLoS ONE | 9.1 weeks |
9.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: Reviewing process is smooth and valid reasons for rejection were given | |||||||
| Oecologia | 14.9 weeks |
14.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
| Nature Communications | 10.3 weeks |
18.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: The process took slightly longer than expected, but we received high-quality reviews which substantially improved the manuscript. | |||||||
| Journal of the Royal Society Interface | 6.1 weeks |
18.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: All reviews were helpful, constructive and thus made publication of our work a reachable goal. | |||||||
| Theoretical Ecology | 8.6 weeks |
8.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
| Computers, Environment and Urban Systems | 10.0 weeks |
13.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Very good and efficient process. The reviews were helpful and timely, and they have improved the paper. | |||||||
| Coral Reefs | 7.6 weeks |
19.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: The editor and reviewer argued that if the revisions did clarified several issues and resulted in a much clearer manuscript, however, they did had serious concerns regarding the novelty of this study relative to the previous one by two of the authors ". I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript. |
|||||||
| mBio | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Motivation: It requires a quite short paper with many restrictions but the review was fair. They wrote that the decision was made without reviews because the Editor's initial assessment indicated that the manuscript would not be appropriate for mBio. They suggested mSphere or mSystem for the manuscript. |
|||||||
| Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification | n/a | n/a | 6.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry | n/a | n/a | 8.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Chemical Engineering Research and Design | n/a | n/a | 17.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Surface and Coatings Technology | 4.0 weeks |
7.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: The review reports were prompt. The final decision was prompt also. | |||||||
| Linguistics and Philosophy | 31.1 weeks |
34.6 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Environmental Management | 13.6 weeks |
36.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Philosophy of Science | 8.7 weeks |
13.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Comments from three (reasonable) referees which motivated helpful changes to the paper. | |||||||
| Philosophy of Science | 8.7 weeks |
11.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie | 20.3 weeks |
20.3 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Very slow review process but the reviewers' comments were fair and constructive. | |||||||
| Tectonophysics | 13.7 weeks |
24.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
1 (bad) |
Accepted |
| Marine and Petroleum Geology | 34.7 weeks |
35.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Journal of Structural Geology | 7.0 weeks |
9.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Marine Geology | 21.7 weeks |
24.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Asian Journal of Control | 10.1 weeks |
18.1 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: This journal was fast and responsive. Also, I felt that reviewers are very familiar with the subject. | |||||||
| Philosophy and Public Affairs | n/a | n/a | 55.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Biomedical Signal Processing and Control | 8.9 weeks |
9.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Quick and fair review | |||||||
| Journal of Engineering Design | n/a | n/a | 10.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Biogeochemistry | 7.7 weeks |
18.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
@scirev