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
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular Reproduction and Development 4.0
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Metals and Materials International 16.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Materials and Design n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 52.0
weeks
52.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Unacceptable delay (one year) to the first review outcome having to contact the editor several times requesting information on the status of the article with low feedback. After one year quality of the reviewers´ response was also quite disappointing. For sure I will never try this journal again.
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecological Modelling 6.4
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I had a very positive experience with Ecological Modelling. The reviews were very thorough, constructive, and received quickly. The editor seemed fair and responsive. It was <1 week from the time the paper was accepted until a fully typeset version was online. Overall- highly recommended!
Journal of Common Market Studies 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Critical but not unfair reviews. The main comments could have been met with "major revisions"
Clinical Pharmacokinetics 13.9
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: CPK is a reputable journal in the field of pharmacy. The submission process was smooth. Time to obtaining the review report was long but subsequent processes (acceptance and editorial process) were really fast.
Marine Biodiversity 43.4
weeks
48.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 7.3
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process for this manuscript took slightly longer than what we've experienced earlier and expected, but all in all we have no complaints. The reviews were to the point and the communications with the editorial office were fast and smooth.
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 7.6
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall a good experience. One troublesome reviewer with an agenda could have been tamped down a little sooner by the editor (it took two revisions for me to convince him that the reviewer was incorrect). Took 10-12 days to get an editorial decision after all of the reviews were in. Nice that the interface shows you this level of detail. Unfortunate that it took that long.
Journal of the Iranian Chemical Society Drawn back before first editorial decision after 75 days Drawn back
Drug Testing and Analysis 2.7
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Defence Science Journal 14.3
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Scientific Reports 5.0
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After many time without a editor (around 1 month), the paper was sent to only one reviewer that doubted about the autenticity of the results. After answer all the reviewer questions and perfomed all the experiments, the paper was rejected by the reviewer. It take almost 5 month to reject a paper.
Coral Reefs 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The duration of the review process is reasonable.
Reviewers' comments are comprehensive, with constructive suggestions.
Coral Reefs 25.6
weeks
31.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of review took far too long.
However, reviewers gave really constructive comments, which helped to improve the manuscript a lot.
Nature Communications 8.1
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Zoological Letters 4.9
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Geophysical Journal International 7.1
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Structural Geology 10.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick process in general and no fee for a print version that includes black and white figures.
Great job of the editor in handling the reviews.
Just a few weeks to wait from the submission time for getting a reference number to track the manuscript.
eNeuro 2.4
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very great. The comments in first round review were excellent, from both methodological and theoretical aspects, and it's done in 17 days! When we resubmit it, the editor just accepted our article few hours later. I was very satisfied with all the processes.
Social Psychology of Education 34.7
weeks
43.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Very, very slow at returning initial reviews. Repeated email contact was politely replied to by an office person (not the editor) but didn't speed up the process. Finally accepted a year (almost to the day) after initial submission.
Circulation 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Australian Journal of Primary Health 6.9
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Patient Education and Counseling n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 13.1
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Once reviewers were found the process was quite quick. However, considering PLoS's claims of rapid publishing times, we found the process quite lengthy. We were contacted one month after our initial submission asking us to nominate an academic editor. Two weeks later, the academic editor contacted us again to ask us to nominate reviewers. Considering the fee to publish, it felt a little like we were doing their jobs for them.
Heart 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
BMC Family Practice 12.3
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
BMC Family Practice 22.1
weeks
28.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Neuroscience 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: While the manuscript was rejected after the first review round, the reviewers' comments were respectful, fair and in-depth.
Acoustical Science and Technology 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Their turn-around time is generally very short. I have submitted three papers, and I have received the decision letter within 2 months.
Critical Public Health 15.6
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Linguistic Inquiry 16.3
weeks
64.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: For a 9-page short paper, every turn-around time took very long. Mostly the comments were not very helpful, asking very specific questions.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.4
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Language Learning 8.0
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very thorough review process. The editor was very helpful, taking care to read reviews carefully and advising on the best way to approach the required revisions.
European Societies 66.1
weeks
113.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Parliamentary Affairs 6.3
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I was positively surprised how quickly I received the responses: the editorial team seem very efficient. Going through a second round of revise & resubmit is always daunting, but the reviewers have been excellent and helped me to make the most out of the data that I had.
Nature Communications 6.4
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very slow editorial decision making and review times for a journal that asks reviewers to send reports in 10 days. After acceptance, multiple back-and-forth changes about text also took considerable amount of time as did final online publication of the paper. In the end, positive outcome in good quality and rigorous journal but be prepared for the editorial process to take much longer than e.g. Cell Press journals.