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
Soil Biology and Biochemistry 9.4
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Neuroscience 3.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: This was the worst publication experience in my career.
Journal of Linguistics 26.7
weeks
42.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good quality reviews, though unfortunately quite slow (typical for linguistics journals). One of the reviewers didn't really understand the point of the paper but the two others were quite good, critical and helpful. Time until final decision took a bit long again.
British Journal of Radiology 6.5
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast review process, especially quick acceptence after revision.
Good quality of the reviewer comments.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology n/a n/a 31.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 18.4
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were detailed but focused principally on style and were contradictory ("thesis should be emphasized more at the outset" / "thesis presented too bluntly... can take more time to develop"), so they did not help in developing the essay.
Annali di Storia dell'Esegesi 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review was detailed and helped by pointing to a missed source on the subject. The editor was quick to respond to questions and the process went very smoothly.
Neotestamentica 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were detailed and helped improve the article on several points. The process went very smoothly even with a change of editors mid-process.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 22.6
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Although the initial review took a while, the editor was quick to communicate throughout the process, the reviewers were clear about the positive aspects of the article and what needed some clarification, and the process went very smoothly.
Review of Scientific Instruments 5.0
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: A little slow with reviews, but overall a good process. This journal also provides detailed status updates on their author portal so you always know what stage it is at.
Robotica n/a n/a 61.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 9.9
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: I perceived the quality of the review as disappointing. To my opinion, the overall conclusions were merely based on perceptions/opinions about the content and context instead of a proper understanding of both. Several comments on the content were incorrect but stated as facts. Other comments I perceived as outside the purpose and scope of the paper. Some comments left the question: “Did the reviewer really read this article or only parts of it?” One reviewer was on the edge of being rude and offensive without giving a proper motivation. There may be valid reasons to reject a paper, but then, be relevant, precise and constructive. The quality of the review is by far not in proportion to the effort that was put into this work. It is not all bad. There are some valuable and constructive comments which I am grateful for. And I hold myself fully responsible for how others perceive my work.
Marine Biodiversity 30.4
weeks
69.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Of the two papers I've had published with this journal so far, this first one was to date among the longest and most challenging review processes. The length of time overall may appear understandable given the 3 reviews that had to be undertaken. However, receiving the first review 7 months after initial submission is in my opinion of very low caliber. Followed by a further 7 months and then 1.5 months for the other reviews, it is my opinion that no review process should take this long, particularly if the paper was of fairly standard length.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Philosophical Logic 12.6
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Comments were detailed and helpful. Everything was handled promptly.
Mind 12.0
weeks
19.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Methods n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Synthese 26.0
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Health Promotion International 14.9
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Business and Information Systems Engineering 16.0
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: My paper theme and journal's aim and scope do not have a close match. However, editor took it forward for review, as my paper theme can contribute to the body of knowledge that journal focuses on. The editor followed the reviewer's comments and suggested me to submit by formalizing a model that extends government and software engineering paradigms. Moreover, the reviewers could not differentiate between capability and capacity indicating that they could not follow my paper. They did not understand the model used in my paper and felt that my paper is focusing only on communication between and among projects. Given the context in which my paper has been taken forward for review a careful selection of reviewers could have helped me in getting meaningful comments to further improve the paper.
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly 0.6
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Cancer Treatment Reviews 5.9
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Applied Clay Science 3.0
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Clay and Clay Minerals 21.4
weeks
24.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
International Journal of Communication 4.9
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Communication Gazette 28.4
weeks
28.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: more than 6 months until first decision (only after reminding the editors)
Communication & Sport 2.0
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Innovation in Digital Ecosystems 10.0
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
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."