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 for East European Management Studies n/a n/a 82.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Public Administration n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 6.9
weeks
15.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Good turnaround times. Always informed, positive and respectful tone.
Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 4.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 6.3
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took some time to the editor to look into the manuscript and take a decision. It was expected to get a rejection from PNAS not because the work is not novel rather it was hard to find a suitable editor from the list of NAS members available on their website (who can be a right fit to review the work). Therefore, we suggested the names of few people to act as guest editor, however we think that they did not consider our request.
Industrial Crops and Products n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Functional Foods n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Philosophical Quarterly 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: While the referee was extremely positive, the editor decided to reject anyway (apparently the article was just not to her taste). This has happened a number of times for the journal and it makes me not want to referee for them - if the editor is going to make a decision that overturns that of the referee anyway, what's the point?
Appetite 7.6
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nature 5.9
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Microbiology n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Immunology 12.6
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nature Genetics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Genetics 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Nature Communications n/a n/a 24.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Geophysical Research 7.4
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Forest Ecology and Management 3.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 8.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Annals of Forest Science 12.6
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: a long time to the first decision; the editor decision was reject with the possibility of resubmission, which I consider as a bad practice of some journals to boost their indexes; after two months we resubmitted our revised MS to the same journal and our paper was published
Journal of Ecology 9.0
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: the handling time was fair, the review report was a high quality with many excelent suggestions
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 14.9
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Judging from the editorial manager system, it already took a month until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Eventually, only one of two submitted a review, the gist of which was that the manuscript is not suited for the journal. Overall I think the whole process took way too long. The editor should have been able to either make a decision about the suitability of the manuscript before sending it out to reviewers, or be more strict about review deadlines. Waiting almost four months for a response just cost us a lot of time that we could have used more efficiently by submitting to another journal.
Annals of Botany n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oecologia n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Annales de la Société Entomologique de France/International Journal of Entomology 26.0
weeks
32.5
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Ecological Entomology 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Common Market Studies 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Very responsive.
Neuropsychopharmacology 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Addiction Biology 9.3
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Earth and Planetary Science Letters n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Bulletin of Volcanology 20.4
weeks
40.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Kyklos 18.3
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were fair, but were very much oriented towards mainstream economiics.
Journal of Lie Theory 50.9
weeks
50.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The report was useful and very detailed but it took one year
Geology 6.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Tetrahedron Letters 2.9
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Tetrahedron 4.7
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Green Chemistry 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 2.1
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected