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
Marine and Petroleum Geology 10.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The overall process was very good. I was surprised with only one, but a constructive review. However, for the paper I submitted, it could be difficult to find a second reviewer in a reasonable time.
Nature Biomedical Engineering n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "However, in view of published work on the development and characterization of tissue-mimicking materials for ultrasound, we feel that this study does not reach the high threshold in degree of advance that we look for in comparable manuscripts that we consider for external peer review."

They were really fast with the editorial process (2 days, with one day being on a weekend). Whether they are correct or not in terms of how big an advance is needed is of course debatable.
International Studies Quarterly n/a n/a 25.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Getting a desk reject is okay, and somewhat careless handling and explanation is expected at this stage. But it just took quite a bit longer than most other desk rejects I've received. The submission tracker was also shown as 'under review', which is very misleading.
Sociological Science n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: As is normal, this paper was reviewed by the editorial board. In what would amount to minor revisions in another journal was a rejection (as per their policies). It took us 1 hour to do the relevant adjustments, and there were 2 technical comments that were plainly wrong. Their deal is transparent (in or out), but their bar also seems pretty high.
Geological Quarterly 5.0
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: (+) It was a very smooth process. I got two valuable reviews that helped in improving the case-study paper. The Journal provided language correction.
(-) A bit long from acceptance to publishing. I had minor problems with the uploading platform and managing graphic content.
Housing Policy Debate 28.1
weeks
28.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
International Journal of Housing Policy 13.0
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very positive experience
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3.4
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Fast handling, eternal review only takes 10 days
American Political Science Review 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: A top notch empirical contribution, but not enough theoretical contribution, apparently not enough for this journal. Reviews are helpful.
SAGE Open 86.8
weeks
86.8
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review speed of this journal is very slow.
European Review 10.4
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Marine Geology 10.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process on the editor side took too much time. One review was constructive, while another gave mixed feelings.
Journal of Neurolinguistics 25.4
weeks
37.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is not very quick, but the editorial office is very responsive.
Scientific Reports 19.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 4 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I appreciate the coordinator and handling process in general. However I really disappoint with revieweres response. Out of four reviewers. There is only one reviewer who seem read through my article and provide rational and constructive feedback. The other two seem not read and suggest what indeed written in the article then they provide mainly linguistic problem. However, the most painful reviewer seem only repeatedly negative 'opinion' without any specific learning points.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was quick
British Journal of Political Science 10.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: It seems we didn't explain well enough what is new in this paper...
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Specific reason should have been provided by the Editor for rejection. Reviewers had mentioned points which could have been modified as required.
American Economic Review n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Desk rejection letter was summary, with no justification given and no constructive comment of any kind, such as other journal suggestions. Given the amount of money requested for the submission, this is disappointing. The only positive mention is that it was an very fast rejection.
Italian Economic Journal 23.1
weeks
32.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
International Journal of Public Health 7.9
weeks
20.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was essentially quite smooth; there was a substantial delay in between, but we managed to be informed: a more proactive communication would have been appreciated.
Scientific Reports 5.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: A so called "Quality Check stage" was ridiculously long, bizarre, and inept. Apparently, it was done at a very remote location because it took several days for the editorial support to respond to the amended versions. It took about two weeks before our manuscript has finally reached the editor. The same happened after reviews of the revision.
We were lucky with one of the reviewers, whose comments were knowledgeable and professional. We were not that lucky with the second reviewer, which rigorously focused on minor things like abbreviations, references formatting, grammatical terms etc. rather than on a subject matter of the manuscript. He/she was the reason for the second revision: few commas were missing, and few abbreviations were not consistent. We think handling editor should have been more decisive or certain before requesting the second insignificant revision. Overall, those were the factors that affected our scores here, at SciRev. It is not the first time we've been having quite a gloomy experience with the Scientific Reports: several years ago, our manuscript was in submission there for more than six months until we finally withdraw it due to delay. It turned out one reviewer approved it for publication, and they've been waiting for the second one to respond. Could have found another reviewer instead.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8.0
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Climate Change n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process is too slow to get a capricious, subjective desk rejection.

"We receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that, even if certified as being technically correct during peer review, there would not be a strong case for publication in Nature Climate Change. Among the considerations that arise at this stage are the immediacy of interest for the wider climate research community, the degree of advance provided, and the like."
Nature Geoscience n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Slow desk-rejections becoming the norm.
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing and Processing 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Land Use Policy n/a n/a 97.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Even though I have published two papers in the LUP in the years of 2019 and 2021, I am not satisfied with long initial screening periods after 2021. The editor rejected the paper after 4 months despite dozens of similar papers in the same journal. You need to click on a confirmation statement when you submit your paper. It states "The initial review process can last up to 4 months". Alarming. A waste of time. Besides, I realized that some papers written by the colleagues in the network of the editorial board can be accepten within significantly shorter times. I suppose that the LUP works on a basis of "rendez-vous". I will not prefer to submit my works to the LUP any more.
Journal of International Development 7.6
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Etudes caribéennes 47.3
weeks
60.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process was very clearly explained and the comments provided me with insightful proposals to improve my manuscript.
Computer 10.4
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Very superficial review saying our software program described in the article was useless. Clearly the reviewers and the editor had no idea about the topic analyzed.
Heart Lung and Circulation n/a n/a 60.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The majority of authors that published in this journal are coming from Australia, with minority from all other countries together.
After the submission of the manuscript, the Editorial Office needed even 2 weeks to complete pre-review checks.
After the long review process by an editor (without sending to external reviewers), the article was rejected with compliments and one vague reason difficult to understand. The editor wished to remain anonymous.
I do not recommend submitting to this journal despite strangely high IF as the quality of review is very bad.
International Journal of Vehicle Information and Communication Systems 18.7
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This is a good journal for authors to submit on.
European Journal of Ophthalmology 27.6
weeks
27.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Brain and Language 9.3
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were largely fair and raised important questions. The editor was quick with decisions after the reviews were in or after we resubmitted our revisions.
BioData Mining 11.4
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We received mediocre reports from the reviewers and addressed all their points.
One of the reviewer was extremely ignorant on the topic and did not understand our replies, and recommend the article for rejection. The editor then decided to reject our article.
BMC Bioinformatics n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very superficial explanations
Bioinformatics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very superficial comments to explain the immediate reject
Computers in Biology and Medicine n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very superficial reasons given to explain the reject.
International Journal of Medical Informatics n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very minimal explanation just saying the article was uninteresting for them.
European Journal of Forest Research n/a n/a 34.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 15.3
weeks
19.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good journal, but the process leaves room for improvements. The first round took a long time only to get short reviews. One reviewer was unreasonable with baseless comments in multiple rounds, and the editor didn't seem keen to help (editors shouldn't be just forwarding reviews). Another reviewer was quite positive, so that helped. The paper got accepted after long rebuttals. After the long first round, the process wasn't that long overall (and the editor was prompt), but it could have been faster and smoother if unreasonable reviewers are not given attention and if editors are active in identifying such cases and communicate with the authors. After acceptance, the PDF was produced quickly.