All reviews received by SciRev

Submit a review Create journal list
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 of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7.9
weeks		 7.9
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Motivation: I believe the concerns raised by the reviewers could have been handled in a revision if this opportunity had been provided, but the reviewers comments were constructive and helpful.
Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica n/a n/a 28.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The article (originally a review) was rejected, but was ressubmittable as a "letter to the editor"
Science n/a n/a 3.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It was fast and painless process.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 10.3
weeks		 12.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: No complaints at all with this journal. Reasonably fast review time and the paper improved in light of the referees' comments. Commentary was constructive, not pedantic. No one even asked me to write out, by hand, how I dummy coded variables (protip y'all: it's 2017...I mean, it's after 1994 and all...so...the software does that..).

Very fast post-acceptance production phase as well--paper was online in about a week after official acceptance. Good copy-editing; the few changes recommended enhanced the text.
A journal ultimately reflects its editor, so Dr. Tight deserves kudos.
Educational Researcher n/a n/a 18.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Urban Studies 15.1
weeks		 21.9
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Excellent work by the editor who helped us navigate one difficult reviewer.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 2.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Uninformative PNAS desk rejection. At least it's fast.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Desk rejection prior to review claiming the paper might be better suited to a specialist journal.
STUF - Language Typology and Universals 13.0
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Review procedure was fairly straightforward, with one expert review and detailed comments by the special issue editor. However, the time spent waiting from acceptance to final publication was ridiculously long. This was in part because of the special issue organisation (some authors were incredibly slow in revising yet too important to boot out), but also because STUF doesn't have an online-first publication strategy, so finished issues senselessly wait in a print queue for over a year.
Language in Society 12.3
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Two detailed referee reports, which arrived in reasonable time. Pleasant communication with editors. The journal has an online-first publication mode which is great because print issues lag behind.
Powder Technology 23.6
weeks		 23.6
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Health Psychology n/a n/a 9.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
FASEB Journal 5.1
weeks		 9.1
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Reveiw process was almost good but distribution for referees were dilayed due to lack of reviewers about rare disease.
Review of African Political Economy 4.1
weeks		 4.1
weeks		 n/a 1 2
(moderate)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Reasoned decision by the editor.
Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry n/a n/a 6.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Organic Letters 2.7
weeks		 2.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Chemical Communications n/a n/a 3.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Angewandte Chemie n/a n/a 3.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 8.4
weeks		 22.4
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers in my opinion did not even try to understand the concept of the study. The authors tried their best. Added more explanations where ever asked. But the reviewers made lame reviews in the end targeting english proficiency of the first author. The first author is a native english speaker. The manuscript was still sent to a language expert and they found the english absolutely fine. After wasting approximately 4 months the journal rejected the paper without giving detailed reasons. Therefore to conclude, they could neither find competent reviewers and neither helped the authors when the reviewers were not doing a satisfactory job. Pathetic experience!
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 19.0
weeks		 20.6
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The first turn-around time was a bit long, but once I revised the paper, the editor accepted the paper without sending it back to the reviewers. That certainly expedited the process.
Journal of Virology 5.1
weeks		 5.1
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Fair and rapid peer-review process.
Advanced Healthcare Materials 8.1
weeks		 14.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The process took longer than I expected. Although the reviewers did not seem experts in the field, their comments were reasonable.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 7.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Genome Biology n/a n/a 6.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Angewandte Chemie 3.3
weeks		 3.3
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Ultramicroscopy 38.7
weeks		 38.7
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 1
(bad)		 Accepted
Motivation: While the manuscript was ultimately accepted, there were lengthy delays and gaps in communication (months long) during which time no communication was received from the editorial staff, despite repeated contact attempts. Only one brief review was received prior to acceptance. Editorial staff was apologetic about the delays, but improvements are very much needed in their review processes.
Mitochondrion 3.0
weeks		 10.7
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: My paper was handled very professionally and the reviewers' comments were very helpful. However, the time period between submission of revisions and acceptance was too long.
Synlett 3.7
weeks		 3.9
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Ecography 13.1
weeks		 21.6
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Our experience from first submission through both sets of revisions was a very positive one. Both referees clearly spent considerable time on the reviews, and provided reports of high quality and detail that helped us greatly in reworking certain sections of the paper. The handling time was quite lengthy, but this was not surprising given the complexity of the manuscript, and the editorial team did a fine job in handling the paper and responding to queries in a timely fashion.
Language and Speech 3.3
weeks		 18.6
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were extremely helpful at every stage of the reviewing process. We actually learned a lot through this process. The only negative aspect was that the associate editor took 2 weeks to make a decision after the reviewers are in; the editor also took about a week after receiving the AE report. It slowed down the whole process a bit.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 54.9
weeks		 88.6
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews took more than 12 months. After the twelve months, we received two reviews: one was a one-sentence review, the other one was one paragraph touching on issues remotely related to the topic of the manuscript. We resubmitted the manuscript and had to wait another six months for the next review: A new reviewer whose review consisted of half a page of editorial and style advice, again nothing regarding the substance of our manuscript.

One rater on this page attributes the long waiting times to the death of a previous editor (which to my knowledge was in 2012 or 2013) and new editors taking over, but note that we submitted our manuscript years after that period.
Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics 9.7
weeks		 11.7
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I understand journals struggle to find reviewers. Our paper was very straightforward and therefore the editorial team + one reviewer was acceptable, but as such 2 or more reviews is better. However, the editor assigned to us was able to grasp the intricacies of our response to reviewers and followed the science while accepting our revisions.
Feminist Economics 25.7
weeks		 65.6
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Overall, I think the quality of the reviews were very high, but unfortunately the last review round (in which we only needed to make some editorial changes) took over six months.
Electronics Letters 9.3
weeks		 9.3
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)		 Accepted
Government Information Quarterly 13.9
weeks		 18.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The overall process was really fine.
The first review round took longer than we had wished for because the second reviewer did neither accept nor decline the invitation and thus nothing happend for three months. We kindly asked the journal to remind the reviewer again, which then sped up the process a bit.
We could not change the corresponding author. Only the corresponding auhtor can see any information on the process online and will receive the reviews from the editor. That is totally impractical as our corresponding author was not available all the time due to medical issues. This should have been handled better by the editor.
The reviews were well written and fair, we managed to adress all points. The second review round only included one minor request - the editor accepted the manuscript two days later. Overall it was a good process.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 18.3
weeks		 23.3
weeks		 n/a 1 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal of Cleaner Production 7.3
weeks		 13.3
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The overall review process was very efficient and the review reports were very constructive.
Scientific Reports 6.4
weeks		 12.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Good 1: The first decision was made in one month after assigning a tracking number.
Good 2: Comments and criticism were fair.
Bad 1: Quality check. It took a long time before sending to editor.
Bad 2: Unexpected delay after revised manuscript submission.
Child Abuse and Neglect 9.1
weeks		 15.1
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews was good and greatly improved the paper. The second round of reviews was also helpful. After an initial long wait for the first decision the process got a lot speedier. However, I felt that one reviewer and one of the editors were asking me to re-frame results in a way that was not supported by evidence, which took a number of minor revisions and rebuttal letters to agree on.
Journal of Rural Studies 13.1
weeks		 13.1
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Motivation: Although the editor sent the paper for review promptly, and I got notification the reviews were completed a month after submission, I only got a response from the editor when I sent a prompt to him 2 mths later. In other words the editor sat on the reviews for 2 mths with no action.