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 Economic Behavior and Organization 35.7
weeks
35.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Too long process
International Journal of Oncology 5.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Political Psychology 27.1
weeks
27.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It took a very long time to receive a reply. Reviews were contradicting, and two of them of very bad quality
AIDS Education and Prevention 15.3
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Patient Education and Counseling 4.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very constructive and respectful reviewers' comments, appreciative editor's comments, quick review process
PLoS Genetics 10.3
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent editorial office, selected reviewers that knew the subject and provided positive suggestions, quick response from the editor and the journal. Overall one of the best journals I have worked with.
ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering 13.0
weeks
19.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.3
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' comments were very constructive and detailed, which helped us a lot to improve our manuscript. The editor has provided clear and direct guidance during the review process. The turnaround time was great and shorter than we'd expected.
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 35.6
weeks
54.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Small Methods 3.0
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Some reviewer questions were already answered in the manuscript. However, the inputs were still important to improve the quality of the paper and address a broader readership.
Nature Human Behavior 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: This experience with NHB's review process was one of the best experiences that I've had with a review process. It took a bit longer than I expected, but it was worth it.
Sex Roles 17.7
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Sleep Medicine 16.3
weeks
28.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Low quality reviewer comments, and difficulties to get feedback from the editor.
I would have expected a bit more given the reputation of the journal in the field.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.4
weeks
27.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process is so long!
Nature Communications n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Business Review n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There was a vague opinion about the paper. It showed they even did not read the manuscript thoroughly. we think the reason of rejection was something that we already explained in the manuscript.
Major reasons for the rejection were stated as the lack of proper theoretical basis of the paper, vague scope (what the paper was trying to say) and the unclear contribution. At the same time, the respected reviewers stated that important studies that were relevant to the field were not consulted with. For us this reasoning was a bit unclear, considering that, as mentioned in the reasons for rejection, the scope of the paper was vague.
International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 41.7
weeks
122.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer took a long time.
Bioinformatics 10.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process from Bioinformatics was awful. The reviewers' comments themselves were ok, but I only need to cut and paste the statement from the editor, it needs no other comment.

"I am sorry for the long delay in reviewing this paper. We normally do not like to make a decision with less than three reviews, but ***one of the three reviews on your paper is greatly overdue and we have not been able to get a response from the referee***. It is especially difficult on your paper, since the two reviewers we have rate the paper very differently. ***Nonetheless, we do not want to attempt to find a new reviewer so late in the process and will make the best judgment we can from the reviews we have.*** "
Particle and Particle Systems Characterization 5.9
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was very smooth and straight forward. We can recomment to publish future paper in PPSC.
Chemosphere 5.9
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was specifically asking to add more information regarding a topic which is not the focus of my manuscript. We added some information concisely and after all the modifications, the manuscript was lengthened by more than 3000 words. Still, the reviewer felt the changes were cosmetic.
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acta Carsologica Slovaca Immediately accepted after 2.9 weeks Accepted (im.)
Archaea 5.9
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Archaea 12.0
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Nature Communications 18.7
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very long.
Science Advances n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 6.1
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer 1 said paper was great and should be published
Reviewer 2 asked for clarifications and improvements
Reviewer 3 wrote an illegible, incredibly negative review and clearly did not have sufficient english language skills to understand the paper. Also asked for experiments that would be ethically questionable in most countries.

Regardless, we did our best to respond and altered the manuscript to appease the negative reviewer. The editor sent the paper back to Reviewer 2 and 3. Reviewer 2 was happy with our changes and recommended publish. Reviewer 3, yet again wrote an aggressive, borderline illegible response and recommended reject.

Unfortunately the editor completely ignored two clearly worded, well thought out reviews that recommended publish and went with what could be seen by most as a hostile review. If the editor had bothered to read the review it would be clear that the reviewer was not suitable for the role. We are very disappointed that he allowed this reviewer to have so much sway.
Food Chemistry 8.1
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 5 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Although the manuscript was sent to 5 reviewers, and some rejected and others accepted the paper, all reviewers did a careful analysis of the paper, suggesting good changes. The process was relatively strict, but as it resulted in the accepted paper, it was worth all the effort, corrections and re-submission.
Nano Letters n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rather long time for a desk rejection, a transfer offer was given
Current Psychology 8.0
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Physical Review Letters 8.3
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: An appeal with Divisional Associate Editor was filed, given unsubstantiated declination by the Editor, that conflicted with recommendations of the reviewers. It too resulted in a declination. Communication read like a standard template.
Renewable Energy n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neuroinformatics n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Schizophrenia Bulletin 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
NeuroImage n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Sensors Journal 10.1
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took around two months but the editorial department was extremely fast. Once submitted, the manuscript was immediately sent out to the reviewers, following which it was under review for the specified period of time. After receiving minor revisions from the reviewers, the manuscript was accepted the day on which the revised manuscript was submitted to the editor. One of the reviewers asked insightful questions while the other was a bit confused about the nature of the work presented in the manuscript.
SAGE Open Drawn back before first editorial decision after 304 days Drawn back
Motivation: We decided to give sage open a try after having good experiences with other OA journals. Three months after submitting and still no editor assigned, we emailed sage and got stock "be patient replies" after asking to pull the submission, they assured us they would find a suitable editor ASAP and asked us to give them one more week. They finally found and editor a couple of week later, a few months later we got reviews and a minor revisions. Four months went by after submitting revisions and not hearing form them. After enquiring they told us the reviews were back a while ago, and the editor was overdue but was no longer responding to emails. After another few months of being given the run around we decided to bull the submission. This is one to stay away from.
PLoS Computational Biology 13.4
weeks
43.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: Very disappointed with the editorial handling of this manuscript. It usually took ~2 weeks to pass the front office and reach the editor's desk. Then it took another ~2-4 weeks until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Add 8-12 weeks for reviews (which is fine). Rinse and repeat for 3 demanding revisions, and you end up needing 1.5 years just to get through peer review. When we had to contact the editor in between revisions, we would not get a response for weeks until we directly emailed them at their institutional address. Overall this process has been frustratingly slow - would not recommend.
Nature Materials n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)