Submit review Create journal list

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
Mechanism and Machine Theory 15.9
weeks		 15.9
weeks		 n/a 4 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The editor for this paper (who is also the editor in chief) waited 20 days to issue his rejection letter, after all reviews have been submitted.
Mechanism and Machine Theory 43.4
weeks		 43.4
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers had no interest in the subject of the paper, and it was obvious that they only read the first 1-2 pages and the conclusions. It took 10 months until the last reviewer submitted his comments. The main rejection argument by the assigned editor was that the paper is not suitable to the journal. He was unaware of several related publications published by the same journal, and that the current submission was a continuation of a paper I published with the same journal back in 2002 (which since has been cited 80 times). The problem that Mechanism and Machine Theory has is that it receives way more many manuscript than its editors can properly handle (850 submissions in 2015 up from 479 in 2010). Consequently, the quality of the reviews has plummeted. Elsevier should consider splitting Mechanism and Machine Theory into two different journals.
Environmental Modelling and Software n/a n/a 44.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the paper presented a systemic modelling work with R-programmed Morris sensitivity analysis that could be useful for other models, the decision was "your paper is a bit too narrowly focused and hence doesn't fit within the scope of the journal".
Such a decision came after 1.5 months, which is quite long given that no further constructive comment was provided.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.6
weeks		 6.2
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review was quick and efficient. 2/3 of the reviewers sent extremely helpful comments that improved the manuscript considerably.
Language Learning 7.0
weeks		 7.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Quick turnaround compared to other journals in the field, particularly considering the allowed length of the ms (up to 10k words). Handling editor didn't just forward the reviews as is sometimes the case, but had clearly read both the ms and the reviews and pointed out which suggestions to prioritise. Handling editor was also quick to respond to a follow-up question of mine.
Sleep and Breathing 4.4
weeks		 8.0
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: This was my first and very positive experience with this journal. The reviewer comments were helpful and helped me to improve the quality of the paper.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 18.4
weeks		 18.6
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: We were very reluctant sending our manuscript to this journal because we were not sure it fitted the scope. We first contacted the editor to check whether the manuscript fitted the scope and he honestly admitted that based on the title and the abstract it may not be a very good fit, but the decision to send it out for peer review ultimately depends on the field editor. We took the risk, submitted the article and 18 days after submission, we were happy to see that our manuscript was "under review." The review process took 4 months, which is fair for the complex manuscript we submitted. All three reviewers were positive and had very little comments. The editor accepted our manuscript pending minor revisions. Once we submitted the revised manuscript, it was accepted the next day. We are of course very happy that the manuscript was accepted without the need for lenghty revisions. However, it is difficult to judge the quality of the referee reports. All three reports were positive and very short. Maybe we submitted a very good manuscript? In any case, we learnt from this case that you should not be discouraged to submit to this journal, even if you are not entirely sure your manuscript fits into its scope. Overall, we are very happy.
Journal of Limnology 24.3
weeks		 29.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
PLoS ONE 9.7
weeks		 16.6
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Good quality reviews but I was hoping for a quicker process. It was not that long however.
Landscape Research 27.3
weeks		 27.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 0
(very bad)		 Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 5.0
weeks		 11.6
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Nature n/a n/a 2.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast decision: very positive
Nature Plants n/a n/a 9.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fair assessment, transparent decision
Scientific Reports 6.4
weeks		 22.6
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 1
(bad)		 Accepted
Motivation: 3 critical points:
-After every single of the 4 submissions, we were informed after 5-11 days that the quality check wasn't passed. Each time another tiny point had to be corrected that had been in there from the beginning, instead to inform us about all the points after the 1st check. And checking the corrected points took again up to 7 days each time. This prolonged processing tremendously.
-Instead of the original submission date, the system marked the submission 18 days later.
-After the 3rd submission, we recieved an email with "Final Decision" in the header, but had to resubmit the manuscript again. Though only 3 minor points (typos etc.) had to be corrected, reviewing took a month again.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization n/a n/a 3.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Novum Testamentum 14.0
weeks		 14.0
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: The review process was not terribly long but there was no feedback at all on my article. I received no comments from the reviewer, simply an email from the editor saying, "I regret to inform you that the editorial board did not accept your manuscript for publication in Novum Testamentum."
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 30.1
weeks		 52.4
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
The Lancet Psychiatry 1.6
weeks		 1.6
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Frontiers in Psychology 3.3
weeks		 3.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were objective and the review process and editorial handling was extremely fast.
PLoS Medicine n/a n/a 2.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the American Medical Association n/a n/a 0.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 25.9
weeks		 25.9
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: I recommend to avoid this journal. It took about a half year to go through the first round. I am glad that one reviewer's comments are helpful.
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences n/a n/a 2.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After a positive answer on our presubmission enquiry, surprisingly, the paper was rejected by the editorial board member who deemed it "too specialized".
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 18.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 2.6
weeks		 2.6
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was read and carefully investigated. The overall handling was satisfactory and I think this is a good journal.
Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering n/a n/a 4.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I think my manuscript was not read at all. They rejected it because I had no published paper in that field. May be they are right because they don't want to waiste their reviewer's times. But, I think these journals, must publish "invited papers" if they want to take the author's resume into account.
Cambridge Journal of Economics 52.1
weeks		 52.1
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: It took more than a year to get reports from reviewers, one of which was only of few lines; When I talked to some colleagues about it, they laughed and said this is not unusual from this journal. I strongly advice against submitting a paper to it.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 16.0
weeks		 18.7
weeks		 n/a 1 1
(bad)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Social Science and Medicine 4.0
weeks		 8.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 2.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Sociology of Health and Illness 6.3
weeks		 6.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Acta Sociologica 8.0
weeks		 22.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Pretty good experience overall.
Sociology of Education 5.7
weeks		 5.7
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
American Journal of Psychiatry 6.0
weeks		 12.4
weeks		 n/a 5 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: I feel that we thoroughly and adequately addressed all reviewer concerns. After our resubmission the manuscript was rejected by the editorial board for reasons that were not initially indicated as problematic (e.g., the sample size).
Molecular Psychiatry n/a n/a 14.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neuron n/a n/a 1.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Psychological Medicine 10.0
weeks		 10.7
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Initial round of reviews was somewhat slow, but after that the entire process was quite expedient with excellent communication both from editorial office and the production team.
JAMA Psychiatry 4.1
weeks		 4.1
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Editorial decision seemed out of line with recommendations of reviewers.
Biological Psychiatry 3.7
weeks		 3.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 22.7
weeks		 22.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Decent duration of the review process. Two out three reviews of good quality, which certainly improved the manuscript, although the paper was rejected.