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
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.1
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was efficient and very constructive.
The feedbacks from the reviewers and the editors helped us a lot to improve the article.
Nature Materials 2.7
weeks
2.7
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Party Politics 12.6
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review process and expectations were made very clear by the Reviewers and Editor. The reviews were deservedly critical but helpful for revisions. A great, professional experience.
Nature Medicine Immediately accepted after 2.0 weeks Accepted (im.)
Critical Studies in Education 20.4
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Two months after submitting the manuscript, the editor sent it to my own thesis director for evaluation. This mean that they did not even check that the potential reviewer and the author belong to the same department of the same institution. When my advisor notified me about the situation I have contacted the journal stating that it is ethically wrong to send a manuscript to someone from the same institution for evaluation. They did not even apologize and simply said that they have too much work, which is very disrespectful because all of us have too much work.

I do not know who evaluated the article afterwards because it seems like they send the manuscript to anybody without even checking their institution. The reports were really bad since their main argument for rejection was that they were 'not convinced' by my argument. Nothing serious about methodology, theoretical sources, the analysis, or the literature review. They were just not convinced. The editor also argued that the manuscript did not fit with the Journal’s aims and scope, in this case I do not understand why this was not a desk reject and I had to wait for more than 5 months for useless reviewer reports. This experience makes me think that the editorial office of this journal is not respectful to authors, and they are not careful about how they treat early-career researchers.
Journal of Organic Chemistry 5.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Translational Psychiatry 8.6
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Chemical Science 11.9
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was painfully slow. The review opinion was split but the editor rejected.
Genetics 10.3
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Plant Ecology 27.3
weeks
28.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of the American Chemical Society n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: At least the decision was fast.
Biodiversity and Conservation 10.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Genome Research 13.4
weeks
16.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The first round of review was too slow.
I'll never submit my manuscript to this journal.
Drug Safety 4.6
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Editor was very responsive and peer review comments where appropriate and on point.
Neuron n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Plant Cell n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "xxxxx" to The Plant Cell. Your submission has been evaluated by members of the editorial board, and we regret to inform you that we are not recommending that your manuscript proceed further in the review process. We have not made this decision lightly. Your submission was assessed at this stage by three editorial board members who judged that the work would not be appropriate for The Plant Cell, and initiating additional review would only delay the eventual publication of your story. This decision reflects the priorities and platform of The Plant Cell, and is not meant to indicate that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication elsewhere.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 22.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript, titled "xxxx", to PNAS; the results of our assessment have led us to the decision to decline to consider it for publication at this time. We apologize for the delay in rendering a decision on your manuscript.

PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.

This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
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.)
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript, titled "xxxxxxx", to PNAS; the results of our assessment have led us to the decision to decline to consider it for publication at this time.

PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.

This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
Genome Biology n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled 'xxxxxx'. Having considered it carefully and discussed it with my colleagues, I am sorry to say that we are not able to consider it for publication in Genome Biology.

As you may know, at Genome Biology we do consider it important that new findings in the submitted work represent a significant advance over previous studies and are of interest to a wide readership of biologists. I should also explain that we receive many more manuscripts than we can publish and our threshold for certain types of studies is raised gradually as specific fields evolve. Although we appreciate that the reported new findings are likely to be of interest to others working in the field, I am afraid we do not feel that the findings represent the kind of significant new insights that would warrant publication in Genome Biology, which is aimed at a broad readership of biologists. We would be looking for more significant follow-up.
International Journal of Educational Research 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Science Advances 22.9
weeks
35.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of reviews are excellent, which helps improve our paper enormously, but the whole process is too slow and long.
Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 23.4
weeks
42.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Two reviewers made some constructive suggestions, but the editors added several remarks that went far beyond the reviewers request (which kind of felt strange as their reviews were not double blinded). The criticism was helpful, yet, could also have been addressed in another revision.
The journal was rather slow in handling the manuscript; decisions about the initial submission and the revision were only sent out when more than four months have passed and I asked about the status
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 20.3
weeks
24.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is very slow in comparison with other open access journals
Letters in Mathematical Physics 90.1
weeks
105.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Handling was completely unethical. Writing that a work has 'not suitable level of rigour' without a single example of a mathematical errors/imprecision is nonsense. It prevents even resubmission to another journal: most likely, the same people are going to handle the work and think: 'oh, that is the same erroneous work, not even corrected', which would lead to another rejection without examination. Since this case concerns violation of basic scientific principles, it requires full transparency; thus a complete correspondence with the journal has been made public: https://users.mccme.ru/mskopenkov/other/lmp.html
Nonlinear Dynamics 10.3
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I used to submit my most important works to NONLINEAR DYNAMICS, and a section as open problems is often supplied for readers' extensive guidance in this field. NONLINEAR DYNAMICS published many imporant papers about neurodynamics and they are helpful for readers. Most of them are highly cited and welcome to us. Most of the reviewers are active and the AEs are kind with supplying helpful additive suggestions.
Computers in Biology and Medicine 3.7
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Crazy review process. We got: major revision / major revision / minor revision / it can be accepted after quick fix-ups / REJECTED.

We were very close to the acceptance, and on the penultimate email from the editor Edward Ciaccio we received an email with the following text:

> Your manuscript has been carefully reviewed, and we would be happy to publish it,
> provided that it is revised in accordance with the enclosed reviewers' comments.

The comments were about the improvement of the English grammar of the article. We asked a colleague to perform an English proof-reading and addressed all the changes. Then the editor decided to reject the paper in the end because of few sentences with English mistakes.

I will never submit an article to this journal ever again.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Patient Education and Counseling 9.4
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers provided great insights in shaping the manuscript to be stronger. The comments were relevant to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. The swift and smooth review process was impressive.
Theoretical and Applied Genetics 6.3
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Economics Bulletin 13.3
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer reveals his/her lack of familiarity with the subject and knowledge about the technique with the comments s/he has made within the report. I would expect a quality review from a journal that old.
Gender and Society 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Gender and Society 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Political Research Quarterly 8.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Social Forces 11.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Rejected due to not fitting the journal. We would have preferred a desk reject in that case.
Gender, Work and Organization 28.2
weeks
28.2
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The one review took rather long (6.5 months) but with a direct acception, we did not care much at the end.
Psychological Medicine 8.7
weeks
26.1
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Some of the Reviewers were a little slow, but otherwise the experience was fine
Composites Part B: Engineering n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I submitted my manuscript which was based on nanocomposites, which is well within the journal's scope. don't know why it was rejected. At the same time there was an article published in the same journal, it had several typos , the title included. I appealed to the editor, but there was no response. if the journal is able to publish such articles with typos I doubt the quality of Elsevier. much more shocking was that the typo ridden article had several citations
Nature Communications 5.0
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
IEEE Sensors Journal 5.6
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Neurocomputing 7.3
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted