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
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.
Nature n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Laboratory Phonology 24.4
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: While the paper was rejected, the reviews were fair. The associate editor took the extra effort of doing some extra research, so that we can further pursue the research reported in the paper. She also apologized in advance for the delay of the decision.
Elife n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
The Permanente Journal 4.1
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
British Dental Journal n/a n/a 88.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I sent a withdrawal letter and the editorial office replied ensuring they have withdrawn the manuscript. later, after 1 week I received an email with the rejection decision!!
Clinical Oral Investigations n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "Recently we have implemented a TRIAGE SYSTEM to identify those submissions, which stand a fair chance of being accepted for publication. While we are sure that you spent considerable time and effort on performing this study, your current manuscript does not fulfill the criteria set by the journal."

First, the editor didn't provide any information about what criteria the manuscript didn't fulfill. and When I sent him an email asking about the journal's CRITERIA, I received no reply since then.

Second, I don't understand the word "Triage system to manuscript". that doesn't even have a literal meaning!!
Brain Stimulation n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Personnel Psychology 7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Two relevant reviews within a reasonable amount of time
Work, Employment and Society 20.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Received three half-page reviews which made clear that the reviewers did not like the manuscript, but were not particularly engaged or constructive.
Journal of Inverse and Ill-Posed Problems n/a n/a 83.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This decision could be taken in one week maximum. It is more than enough to check the manuscript suitability. In this journal the same decision took about three months.
Mechanism and Machine Theory 4.7
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Editor-in-chief answered promptly and was helpful. Online tracking system is functioning well. We feel that the review process increased the overall quality of the paper. Reviewers were familiar with the area of research and comments were thorough and knowledgeable, and took only 4 weeks.
Geophysical Journal International 19.1
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Journal of Molecular Liquids 13.9
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews was usefull and reviewers looks very expierenced in the field of our research. Reviewers works fast. A littlle bit long time paper have status "with editor".
Biologicals n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Bioresource Technology 6.0
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very fast. Reviewers comments was useful. Totally ol review process looks very well.
Regional Environmental Change 24.1
weeks
27.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The length of the first review was exceptionally long. However, the editors were responsive to my inquiries during the lengthy review
European Journal of Political Research 6.1
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Limnology and Oceanography 8.1
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Maternal and Child Health Journal 13.6
weeks
49.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Psychologie Francaise 60.8
weeks
62.3
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Language Acquisition 16.0
weeks
34.3
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Editor was balanced and appreciative. Quality of review reports was reasonable.
The editor apologised for the difficulty in finding reviewers (one or more who agreed to review did not actually return the review reports). Because of that, the process took much longer than their average turnaround times (which they usually report at the beginning of each year in an Editorial).
BMC Psychiatry 8.4
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Prometheus 24.4
weeks
24.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Slow initial handling – it took over a month to assign an editor to the submission and then another few weeks before this editor sent the manuscript to external reviewers. Lean and personal communication in later stages of the review process however makes up for some of the delays caused initially.
Psychological Medicine 4.4
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, an excellent, high-quality and speedy review process.
Erkenntnis 34.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Conditional acceptance after 8 months waiting. Not sure what hold-up was. Only received comments from one referee as well.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Information Systems Education 12.0
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast tournaround time. The editor is responsive and helpful. The reviews I received followed a standardized scheme, but could be more detailed and of higher quality.
Biomass and Bioenergy n/a n/a 91.2
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 3 months for a rejection without external reviewers
Cognition 18.7
weeks
42.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Sociological Methods and Research 22.9
weeks
22.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Conservation Biology n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I felt the editor raised important points in rejecting the manuscript, even if I did not agree with them entirely. I used many of the comments to improve the manuscript, which helped get it published elsewhere. I appreciated that the editor shared my manuscript with a colleague to gain additional advice before making a decision.
Biological Invasions 12.9
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I felt the process was smooth and reasonably fast. I never felt like the waiting periods were excessive, and and in general the comments were relevant and constructive. Editors responded to queries quickly and were accommodating regarding timelines for returning revisions.
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Arid Environments 14.3
weeks
14.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ecography n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Zoology in the Middle East 1.0
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)