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
Genes and Development n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review time under editorial consideration was ten days, which was good enough. They communicated to us by saying the paper did not exhibit any novel mechanism/pathway and thus not appropriate for the broad readership of their journal. We were not that dejected as Genes and Dev does have very stringent criteria for their manuscripts.
Plant Journal 5.4
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Neuropsychologia 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Review speed was reasonably fast. However, one of the reasons why the manuscript was rejected was that a similar paper had been published in the same journal *after* we had submitted our manuscript. We inquired reconsideration of the editor decision immediately based on this ground, but it took almost two months and a lot of reminder emails to receive a response from the editor in chief, in which our concern was not addressed at all.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports 4.4
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Molecular Psychiatry 0.6
weeks
0.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
American Journal of Emergency Medicine n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4
(very good)
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: Reasonable time from submission to first decision for a letter to the editor
Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 4.9
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reasonable time from submission to first decision
Genome Biology 6.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Economics 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: One referee report was constructive and positive while the other was mediocre and disrespectful. Editor sided with mediocre report.
Scientific Reports 5.7
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: We had 2 good reviewer reports and 1 who wanted rejection. We spent a couple of weeks rewriting and answering extensively every comment. After resubmitting, the Editor did not bother to send our comments to the reviewers, he simply stated that our negative towards performing an experiment made him doubt about the rest of our data even though we reasoned it.

If we had been asked to perform the experiment on a 2nd revision row we would have done it. It is very disappointing that we answered everything the reviewers asked and in the end they did not even get to read it.

Until this last part, the treatment had been very good and the process was quite fast.
Human Molecular Genetics n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process was very fast, the Editor liked the topic of our paper but it did not exactly fit in the scope of the journal.
Waste Management n/a n/a 50.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Submission was rejected because it was considered out of the journal scope. It took 7 weeks for this decision.
Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 6 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: We only received the responses of 3 reviewers (Reviewer #4, #5 and #6), and two out of these three advised some revision topics, however they still said our manuscript deserved publishing. On the other hand, the last reviewer said our work did not deserve publication, and we then received the rejection letter.
Scientific Reports 3.0
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were pretty quick, however the editorial handling was extremely slow and ineffective. After the revision, both reviewers were satisfied and recommended publication. The first reviewer only asked to delete a single sentence. After making this simple change and resubmitting, it took 3 weeks for the editor to send the final decision.
Sociological Quarterly 17.0
weeks
59.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It took 1.5 years to reach a decision on this paper, that's very disappointing. I understand that after this time, the editor did not want to go through another round of reviews, despite acknowledging that the paper addressed the concerns of the reviewer(s) at each stage, but then new issues came up.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 9.9
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Journal of Transport Geography 18.0
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process as speedy and transparent. The quality of the reviews were mixed, one of them could have been more specific. Just one reviewer advised to reject the paper.
Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice Drawn back before first editorial decision after 334 days Drawn back
Motivation: Repeated attempts to contact the editor about the status of the manuscript remained unanswered. Even a withdrawal request remained unanswered for several weeks until I phoned up the publisher. It then took two more weeks to withdraw the paper.
Ethnicity and Health n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejection was quick which enabled me to resubmit quickly to another journal.
Journal of Computational Neuroscience 11.0
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: A great journal, with a precise and almost rapid review process.
Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering 24.7
weeks
29.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6.0
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The interactive review forum is a very convenient way to address the reviewers' comments in a neatly arranged fashion, which also allows for an expeditious overall process.
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 22.0
weeks
42.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Refrigeration 5.4
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Thermochimica Acta 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The first rejection was based on only a single reviewer, who appeared to have not even read the manuscript thoroughly. He/she repeatedly crticised an experimental method that was not even used in this work. He/she was also majorly criticizing the exact approach of the uncertainty reporting (like, that it should be specified to be standard or expanded uncertainty, and that e.g. for a table where and how it should be etc.). These aspects are however more template-based aspects, and thus shoudl not be basis for rejecting an article carrying a content of scientific value.
When I confronted the editor, he agreed that it shouldn't be a rejection, and said it was by a mistake, and then revoked that rejection.
Then, a second reviewer was added later on (17th Dec 2016) who has very good feedback, and I received a suggestion for major revision.
Then, when all the relevant changes were done accordingly, a second revision was submissted. This was however, surprisingly treated as a brand new submission. There, although the second reviewer seemed very content with the changes, again based-on the 1st reviewer's brand-new criticism on the article (who did not still seem to read the article sufficiently), the article was rejected, even without acknowledging all the changes done so far.
Australian Journal of Education n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Prompt feedback on paper and good justification given for not being appropriate for the journal.
Drug and Chemical Toxicology 11.9
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: long time of response.
Journal of European Public Policy n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: paper was too descriptive for the journal, suggested two alternative journals to try
Memory and Cognition 13.6
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Nanotechnology 5.0
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ultramicroscopy 6.3
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Food Quality and Preference 8.0
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 32.7
weeks
32.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: the process has make a huge time to be performed
waste of time
Journal of Applied Psychology 12.1
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice 8.3
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript and review process was well handled, quite fast, and the reviewers' comments were helpful and of high quality. Would submit again.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 12.3
weeks
16.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite rapid considering the length of our manuscript. Reviewer comments were constructive and well-articulated; the quality of our manuscript was very much improved after taking those comments into consideration. The formatting of the reviewer comments occasionally made it difficult to decipher them. Slightly clearer formatting, which separates out the different points a bit more, may, therefore, be helpful in the future.
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical 10.9
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical is a great journal in the field of parasitology and its acceptance processes is fast and satisfactory.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 3.9
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.7
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted