All reviews - Page 1

All reviews received by SciRev

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome
The EMBO Journal	n/a	n/a	4.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
The EMBO Journal	Motivation: Poor initial assessment. The argumentation for rejection was scientifically incorrect (claiming that the structures we report are known, which is not true).
Nature Structural and Molecular Biology	n/a	n/a	8.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Nature Structural and Molecular Biology	Motivation: quick rejection
BMC Psychiatry	31.7 weeks	43.7 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	1 (bad)	Accepted
Brain Structure and Function	6.4 weeks	11.6 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Science Translational Medicine	5.1 weeks	19.3 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Science Translational Medicine	Motivation: The 14 week time for the second review included edits made by the editor herself. Prior to this, the paper was unofficially accepted; however the official notice did not come until we did one round of minor edits with the editor.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture	28.1 weeks	28.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Mindfulness	9.9 weeks	11.1 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Mindfulness	Motivation: Two reviewers expressed some doubts but were essentially encouraging. One review was so obnoxious as to prompt a query to the Editor on how to respond to such a discourteous and unprofessional review (s/he used terms like "ignorant", "naïve", "ridiculous", "self-serving" to describe us/our work!). The editor was extremely helpful and responsive in helping us to manage this difficult review. Overall I felt the Ed was not slavishly bound to reviewer recommendations and had sufficient flexibility and knowledge of the field to make a reasoned and rapid decision on our paper.
Brain Stimulation	n/a	n/a	25.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
PLoS Pathogens	n/a	n/a	4.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
PLoS Pathogens	Motivation: Very poor initial assessment. It seems that the editor did not understand the main message of the manuscript.
Nicotine and Tobacco Research	12.9 weeks	12.9 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	3 (good)	Rejected
Nicotine and Tobacco Research	Motivation: I felt the decision to reject was not well justified. It did not match the content of the reviews, which were generally encouraging.
Nanomedicine	5.7 weeks	5.7 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica	6.0 weeks	6.0 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Educational Research Review	6.9 weeks	7.4 weeks	n/a	4	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Ocean Engineering	39.9 weeks	45.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Virulence	4.9 weeks	4.9 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences	6.6 weeks	13.7 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences	Motivation: The overall review process was very pleasant, the reviewers had several constructive criticisms to make regarding the MS. Upon making the requested revisions, the turn around time was prompt.
Ecology	7.1 weeks	12.3 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Drawn back
Ecology	Motivation: I found the reviewer and editor's to be very insightful and constructive. As such they greatly improved the quality of the MS. More in they were returned in a prompt manner. The MS was ultimately referred to Ecosphere.
Elife	n/a	n/a	4.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Biological Psychology	8.9 weeks	15.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	2 (moderate)	Accepted
Scientific Reports	5.4 weeks	5.6 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Scientific Reports	Motivation: Excellent review process and appropriate editor selection (100%). Many positive comments from the reviewers and some of the reviewers not interested to comment, though they intended to reject with negative comments. However, editor decision very honest that improved the manuscript very vell....
Genome Biology and Evolution	5.7 weeks	9.4 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Genome Biology and Evolution	Motivation: Very fair and constructive Reviewer's criticism. The manuscript was really improved after two revision rounds. Editorial communications within the expected timeframe.
Nature Communications	n/a	n/a	15.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology	16.1 weeks	16.1 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Rejected
MDPI Sensors	4.4 weeks	5.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing	17.1 weeks	17.1 weeks	n/a	4	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Rejected
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing	Motivation: Although the paper was rejected, the review comments were constructive for improving the quality of our paper.
Expert Systems with Applications	22.6 weeks	22.6 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
IEEE Sensors Journal	6.1 weeks	12.9 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Marketing Letters	8.1 weeks	8.1 weeks	n/a	1	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Marketing Letters	Motivation: My manuscript was sent to two reviewers. But apparently, one of the reviewers did not respond in time. B/c Marketing Letters wants fast process, the editor made the decision based on one reviewer's rejection, agreeing that my manuscript has methodological problems, not an interesting topic, and poor English. The reviewer's comments were nice and helpful in a certain way to improve my manuscript, though the reviewer seemed not to be a very good fit for reviewing my manuscript. My manuscript was edited by the professional editing service and does not have clearly apparent grammatic errors or anything. I submitted to Marketing Letters to get a quick response, but the word limit was simply too harsh to fully and properly communicate especially for the modeling research. Although it took nearly two months to get a rejection at the first round, considering that it was right when the summer vacation started, I think the response was quick enough. The editor was also very nice and polite even with the rejection letter.
Genome Biology	16.7 weeks	47.1 weeks	n/a	1	2 (moderate)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
Genome Biology	Motivation: It was extremely slow (4 months per round) getting reviews back every time, even though we always submitted our revisions in less than a month. In the end we were rejected "because the process had gone on for so long", even though the slow-down was not on our end. We also only had a single reviewer every time, which I have never experienced before or since. I found the treatment to be unfair and disrespectful of our time.
Nature Medicine	n/a	n/a	14.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Genome Research	n/a	n/a	14.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture	28.1 weeks	28.1 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Soft Computing	31.7 weeks	36.6 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Geologica Carpathica	8.7 weeks	10.7 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
World Development	39.3 weeks	70.0 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Physica B: Condensed Matter	n/a	n/a	8.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Physica B: Condensed Matter	Motivation: The manuscript could be a fit for journal, but the editors made a biased decision.
Journal of Applied Physics	Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks						Accepted (im.)
Journal of Applied Physics	Motivation: After a thorough review process at APL, paper was accepted without external review. A very quick review by an associate editor was all that was required prior to acceptance.
Applied Physics Letters	4.0 weeks	10.9 weeks	n/a	1	0 (very bad)	3 (good)	Rejected
Applied Physics Letters	Motivation: Original reviewer recommended rejection and clearly did not read the manuscript. Required appeals to the editor to get it re-reviewed. Eventual reviews were helpful, but we believed unduly critical. After multiple revision rounds, was ultimately referred to J. Applied Physics, where it was immediately accepted.
Microscopy and Microanalysis	4.1 weeks	10.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Microscopy and Microanalysis	Motivation: Thorough communication throughout the review process. One reviewer was substantially more critical than the other, but the manuscript was improved as a result. Submission and reviewing was an easy process, and I would publish in this journal again.
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering	n/a	n/a	6.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering	Motivation: After 6 days it was told that the paper should be submitted to a more specialized journal. Although the status of the paper was with the "Under Review" for 4/5 days, the truth is that no review was undertaken in our paper. Nevertheless, the answer was quick and reasons for rejecting were given.