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
Geologica Carpathica 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
World Development 39.3
weeks
70.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Physica B: Condensed Matter n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript could be a fit for journal, but the editors made a biased decision.
Journal of Applied Physics Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: After a thorough review process at APL, paper was accepted without external review. A very quick review by an associate editor was all that was required prior to acceptance.
Applied Physics Letters 4.0
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Original reviewer recommended rejection and clearly did not read the manuscript. Required appeals to the editor to get it re-reviewed. Eventual reviews were helpful, but we believed unduly critical. After multiple revision rounds, was ultimately referred to J. Applied Physics, where it was immediately accepted.
Microscopy and Microanalysis 4.1
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough communication throughout the review process. One reviewer was substantially more critical than the other, but the manuscript was improved as a result. Submission and reviewing was an easy process, and I would publish in this journal again.
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 6 days it was told that the paper should be submitted to a more specialized journal. Although the status of the paper was with the "Under Review" for 4/5 days, the truth is that no review was undertaken in our paper.
Nevertheless, the answer was quick and reasons for rejecting were given.
Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 9.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The points adressed by the reviewers could have easily been resolved. We believe the journal declined as one reviewer was not sure about the "fit" of our manuscript with the journal.
Journal of Applied Psychology 15.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Vocational Behavior 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
American Political Science Review 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
American Political Science Review 16.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Political Research Quarterly 25.1
weeks
25.1
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Six month wait for cursory reviews is unacceptable.
Journal of Politics 12.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Clinical Microbiology and Infection 3.9
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Elife 6.3
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of review was quick, but they even apologized for the delay compared to their policy, which is impressive. The reviewing editor who disclosed her/his name spotted the interesting point that significantly improved the manuscript. Overall review quality was high.
Cell n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor seems not familiar with the topic.
Elife n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: At least it's quick, and reasonable decisions has been made by expert scientists, thus no frustration.
EMBO Reports n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor seems not familiar with the topic.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
PLoS Computational Biology 12.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The overall process was very slow.
Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I submitted a paper in this journal and we got a decision in onw week. The only problem is the lack of reasons to reject the paper without any reviews.
WIREs Water 7.1
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After the submission of the revised article, the editor informed that it was sent to the previous reviewers for review. However, both the reviewers declined to re-review the revised article. It was not even sent to new reviewers for review. The associate editor himself started to review the revised article. He took 3 long months to review and rejected the article without any solid reasons. We had addressed almost all the reviewer comments in the revised article.

According to my perception, the editors are very lazy/negligent in carrying out efficient and timely reviews and are reluctant to think about the efforts of authors who wait for about 7 months with an intention of getting acceptance.
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 5.4
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: All in all, the review process was fine. However, in my opinion, the quality of one reviewer's report was very low, and this reviewer was obviously not familiar with the research area. Furthermore, this reviewer then withdrew from the review process at a later stage (for no obvious/mentioned reason), which considerably delayed the review process, because then a new review round started from scratch with a new reviewer.
FEBS Letters 2.3
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The submission process was easy. The entire review and resubmission was fast and without any problems. Site is very user friendly.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27.1
weeks
38.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were useful and relevant, and the editor was supportive. However, both the first (seven months) and the second (two months and a half) editorial decisions took too long.
New Phytologist 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: 26 weeks, no comment ......
Cognition 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: My main criticism is that 3 months is a lot of time for a revision process (btw, my paper was quite short, only 3 figures), thus I expected at least a constructive criticism of the reviewers. Instead, one of the reviewers criticized the methodology without providing any advice or giving us any chance to justify the choice of our method. I believe this does not lead to a proper scientific discussion.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers were obviously from two very different fields, recommending two very different sets of additional experiments. This caused rejection by the editor.
Neurocomputing 12.7
weeks
20.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Molecular Plant n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor said that they would not consider our study for a full research article since our study is totally computational and on the topic of genomics.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1.6
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Nice and very fast reviewing process.
Physical Review Applied 8.3
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was rigorous and the handling time of our manuscript was reasonable. The copy edit process was also rigorous and the grammar of our manuscript was significantly improved in the final published version.
Physical Review Letters 1.1
weeks
1.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor's handling was fast. Our manuscript was quickly sent out for review. The referee comments and editor's final decision were fair and justified.
Physical Review Letters n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor rejected our manuscript after 3 days of submission. This is a very fast response speed, and we were able to re-submit to Physical Review series. We believe that the editor's decision was fair and justified.
Physical Review B 7.9
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Peer review process is very rigorous. The editor allowed us to spend considerable amount of time to revised our manuscript. Editor and reviewer comments/decisions are fair and justified.
Africa Spectrum n/a n/a 27.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A month for a desk rejection is slow.
Neurology 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After 6 weeks after submission, we have received 2 reviews - one positive and one negative. Unfortunately, the editor inclined to the negative review and rejected the manuscript. We wrote appeal letter, because the negative review was absolutely out of the bowl, using unscientific based arguments...we were writing 4 pages long appeal letter for the WHOLE DAY, carefully argumenting each reviewer statement. It takes only 5 MINUTES to getting answer from editor-in-chief: "You need to send it to some other journal". So, he couldn´t open and read our appeal letter. I think, such behavior is very unfair and nonprofessional.