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
Contemporary Economics 78.1
weeks
78.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor was impolite, not responsive, irresponsible. Reviewers were unprofessional and showed no strengths and responsibilities in performing their peer review duty. In fact, having reject decisions was nothing new to an experienced author, but the way this journal handled their manuscript and treated the submitter was really terrible and totally unacceptable, an experience that I could not forget after many years.
International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Information Processing and Management n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I have send three manuscripts till now to this journal and the editor response very quickly within 1-4 days if it is desk rejected. Even though I made the structural changes in abstract, references and all send the manuscript again as a new submission stil the editor rejected it without sending it to the authors.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44.6
weeks
44.6
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process takes too long.....
Nutrition Reviews 13.0
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: After submitting revisions and waiting a couple of months, we received a second revision except it had exactly the same comments which had already been addressed. There was a bit of back and forth with the journal. It should have been a quicker process because there was only a single minor revision for the manuscript, which we addressed promptly, yet it took about 6 months to get it accepted from initial submission.
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 7.0
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The turnaround times were very quick. Reviews were reasonable.
Neuron n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick and detailed response. Looking forward to getting rejected again in the future.
Journal of Rural Studies 20.1
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of the Electrochemical Society 3.4
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I was very happy about the fast and professional review process. Especially the guidance of one of the two reviews really improved our manuscript.

Also, I like the easy way to achieve open access publishing for the papers (our university has a contract with the publisher, so we pay no fees for open access, but you can also publish open access without a fee when you are member of the Electrochemical Society).
ACS Sensors n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journals of Gerontology, Series B 6.3
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was handled very professionally. Good quality reviewers that helped improve the manuscript substantially.
Molecular Psychiatry 4.7
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 6 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 41.1
weeks
41.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Eurosurveillance n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Eurosurveillance n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Efficient and rather fast review process. One of the reviewer had problems with our methodology while the other reviewer was globally positive. This resulted in the rejection of our paper.
Military Psychology 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11.9
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: After a 12 week review, we received a single paragraph outlining a half-dozen shortcomings in our manuscript, none of which were supported with literature. This is concerning given statements surrounding the novelty of the work. Collogueges well versed in the topic had previously reviewed this manuscript and found it novel and engaging to read. Given the limited depth of the review, only a single review being reported with no recommendations for improvement, the process allowed provided little improvement potential. I have previously been very impressed with this journal and will submit here in the future, but will hope for a more thorough and timely review process.
Journal of Advertising n/a n/a 22.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The quality of the feedback given and the justification for not sending it out to reviewers were disappointing.
Analyst 4.7
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Sex Roles n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Artificial Intelligence n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor felt that the work was not suitable for publication because it did not fit the journal's scope. The authors do not agree in general with the editor's decision and think that the topics perfectly matched the journal's guidelines. Works on similar topics, and published in the same journal in the past, were even previously identified by the authors which partially guided the decision for choosing this journal. The editor admitted he was not able to understand the topic of the paper which the authors found it also a surprising statement. We concluded that we just had 'bad luck' with the assigned editor. The communication at least was fast which is always a positive point.
Frontiers in Neurology: Neuro-Otology n/a n/a 50.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rapid rejection without review. No complaints here - we submitted the paper to another journal the following day.
Bioresource Technology n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor has refused the article without any good reason and I had the feeling that he does not even read the manuscript, given the automatic, vague and obtuse answer.
European Sociological Review 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: We failed to communicate our results well in this paper, and received rather confusing reports from the reviewers. That's not going to cut it with a journal like ESR.
Nature n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was quickly rejected because the editor felt that it was not a fundamental advance in our understanding. I got the option to submit to the sister journal of Nature Climate Change.
Elife n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Brain Research 14.4
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 15.3
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Small n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Other suitable journal was suggested. The suggested journal did not fit to the topic of our manuscript.
Nature Methods n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Renewable Energy 29.7
weeks
29.7
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After 7.5 months, the editor only managed to obtain one external review. This one review was mildly negative; most comments were related to stylistic concerns or requests for clarification of some points. The reviewer
The conclusion the editor came to was this: "As you can see we based our decision on just one review. The paper is also evaluated by the Subject Editor who agrees with the reviewer. "
The subject editor's remarks were not included. After 7.5 months we received a rejection and almost no constructive feedback on how to improve the paper.

The subject matter was fluid mechanics. Colleagues have had similar experiences with other fluid mechanics papers, although papers in other subjects have been treated relatively fairly.




Nanoscale n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cell Systems n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor declined without reasonable reason.
Information and Management 17.9
weeks
31.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Although the decision was not what we wanted, the review process was quite high quality. The reviewers and AE were quite knowledgeable on the topic. Although we had a philosophical divergence with one of the reviewers, the AE supported us on that point and so did not let that be a deciding factor. The reviews were received in average time for journals in our field. Considering that the eventual decision was a rejection, I'm glad it did not drag for more than two rounds--the journal gave us a fair attempt to try to retell our story. Overall, I consider this a good-quality process for a rejection outcome.
Journal of Clinical Investigation 0.9
weeks
0.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Review processing time was average, but reviewers have raised issues that we can not solve right away.
Genome Biology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)