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
Environmental Science and Technology 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: We got very interesting comments from reviewers.
British Journal of Pharmacology 11.3
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 1
(bad)
Rejected
Nature Communications 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We specifically ask the reviewer not to consider someone as reviewer, as our findings are highly critical of that person's work. Yet reviewer 1 was clearly that person (exact same viewpoint and same wording of specific parts of their papers) and picked out every possible misunderstanding to reject the paper.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Communications in Mathematical Physics n/a n/a 199.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very long wait for a desk rejection. Repeatedly asked about status to no avail.
Research Policy 27.4
weeks
27.4
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Referee's report was shallow and useless despite the time taken to complete it. Referee did not seem to have the qualifications necessary to review the methodology and the subject of the article.
Frontiers in Microbiology 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editorial process was poor, We did not receive any substantial comment about our manuscript, just say that Objective errors in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in this manuscript that prevent further consideration.

But it does not show evidence of these methodological flaws, it is only a personal appreciation without scientific foundation
Advanced Materials n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They suggested an automated transfer to the sister journal Advanced Engineering Materials. However, it's worth noting that (1) Advanced Engineering Materials is ranked much (8/415 vs. 146/415) lower than Advanced Materials in the Web of Knowledge and that (2) it is an open-access journal with an APC of US$4330.
Economics and Politics 20.9
weeks
26.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: We had a good experience with the journal. The referee report made us aware of an alternative interesting method, which we implemented and bettered the paper. We also feel that Economics & Politics is more open-minded in terms of topics.
Journal of Experimental Political Science 10.9
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Neither of the reviewers nor the editor (on hindsight) thought that a hypothetical treatment was a clever idea. In that sense, a desk reject would have been less painful, but then we did get more detailed comments on the manuscript.
Clinical Drug Investigation 3.7
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Review was very fast and fair and the editor thoroughly edited the paper's language and style.
Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine 6.0
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Legal Medicine 6.9
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Bioinformatics Immediately accepted after 17.1 weeks Accepted (im.)
Global Environmental Politics n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Plant Journal 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Review process was good and decently rapid. Reviews were moderately helpful (one more so than the other).
Energy for Sustainable Development n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Ecology and Evolution 9.6
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very good experience. Some of the reviews were a bit intense but the reviewer implied in their message that they didn't expect us to consider some of the recommendations. It took some effort with two revisions before an acceptance in principle, but the editor was very helpful.
Land Degradation and Development 9.3
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was quick to respond to the author’s emails related to the manuscript. The first decision was to reject and resubmit. One reviewer accepted with minor corrections. The second one has a concern about the format of the manuscript and some of the technical terms. We submitted the revised manuscript, the second decision was a major revision. The first reviewer with minor corrections accepted the revision. The second reviewer still had some concerns about the content. We submitted the revised manuscript, the third decision was to accept it in its current form. The second reviewer accepted with no further corrections.
Filomat Drawn back before first editorial decision after 516 days Drawn back
Motivation: The journal kept the manuscript for more than 17 months and the handling editor did not respond to any of my mail regarding inquiries of the status. After getting tired of no responses, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and sent a mail to the journal's email account regarding withdrawal and explained the reason for being ghosted by the handling editor. The journal also did not respond for more than 10 days and then we contacted the chief editor who finally apologized for the situation and the manuscript was withdrawn finally. Note that I tried to contact the chief editor in between but he was too busy with lots of paper and could not check on my manuscript and asked me to contact the handling editor again. 17 months and no response from the handling editor are just too much. At least, we deserve a referee report at the end. But alas, we did not get any. Thankfully, we can submit the manuscript elsewhere.
Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis de Mathematica 16.1
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The handling editor was really quick in their work and the review time taken was relatively less. Also, they would reply to any queries instantly regarding the submission. The report attached was also good as the reviewer mentioned the importance of our work in detail in it and asked for some simple clarity in one of the steps in the proof which we provided and the manuscript was accepted. The good part is that the journal is diamond open access and one need not have to pay any APC for publishing open access.
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 21.4
weeks
36.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Neuropsychologia 26.0
weeks
28.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: It was terrible. First it was sent off to two reviewers and both had a few comments on it. We addressed them and resubmitted the paper. However, since the beginning it was clear that the section Editor did not read the paper at all. Then after we resubmitted it, we received the comments from three reviewers. The editor felt like asking one more reviewer. One reviewer from the first submission was happy with the revision and had no further comments. The additional reviewer had no comments at all (this tells you the poor selection of the reviewers) and the other reviewer from the first submission strangely enough this time had more comments and was not happy at all with the revision despite we replied to all their minor comments. Not only that but they also wrote a nasty comment to offend us and the Editor did not do anything about it. In the end the Editor rejected our paper without even reading it! What a poor Editorial work. I would certainly never submit any other paper to this journal.
Nature Physics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editors treated the manuscript fairly. They suggested that the manuscript be transferred to Scientific Reports.
Environments 2.3
weeks
2.7
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and target-oriented publishing process. Nevertheless, the quality of the reviews seems to suffer under this time pressure. Since this is an open access journal, publication is somewhat expensive, but everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles published.
Nationalities Papers 11.0
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I had a very pleasant experience with this journal. Reviewer reports were constructive and relatively fast. Definitely recommended.
Nature Ecology and Evolution n/a n/a 8.0
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.)
Elife n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Current n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2.6
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Surprisingly quick review/handling process. I'd appreciate it.
Nature Food n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports 10.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ear and Hearing 9.0
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Finance Research Letters 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: weak reasons for rejection
Finance Research Letters 2.3
weeks
2.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Single Peer-Review means that the reviewers know the author's name