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
International Review of Administrative Sciences 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers gave useful comments. Reviews were obtained after two months which is pretty fast compared to other journals.
PLoS ONE 17.4
weeks
69.4
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: After submission of the first revision, the editor was unavailable. Plos ONE did not find a new editor for about one year. So we decided to withdraw our manuscript and submit elsewhere.
Frontiers in Psychology 7.4
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review system. Very good reviews and very nice online interactive review forum.
PeerJ 2.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and nice review system. Easy and uncomplicated submission system.
BMJ Open 20.6
weeks
25.1
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were a little bit confusing, but overall review process was OK.
Geoforum 11.7
weeks
35.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was excellent and the editor was very responsive and timely. The reviewers really helped in making the paper better. The one drawback is that one of the reviewers took a long time to respond, which delayed the process.
Quaternary Science Reviews 8.7
weeks
8.8
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Geophysical Research Letters 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Clinical Epigenetics 1.3
weeks
2.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Scientific Reports 15.4
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Community, Work and Family 26.7
weeks
26.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast, would submit there again.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Though rejected, the prompt response seems very fair, professional and encouraging to pursue a better fitting journal.
Journal of Adolescent Health n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Liver Transplantation n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Clinical Chemistry 7.7
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Dental Research n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Dental Materials n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "I regret that on this occasion your work was considered to be more appropriate for a general dental journal being more clinically oriented and I have, therefore, to reject it."
Transplant International n/a n/a 74.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Transplantation 5.1
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Clinical Biochemistry Immediately accepted after 0.1 weeks Accepted (im.)
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 8.9
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and thoughtful review, and excellent communication from the editor throughout the process. The journal even helped to promote the manuscript after publication via their blog and social media.
Hydrological Processes 7.4
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: I understand where one of the reviewers was coming from (the one who was most dissatisfied with our revisions) but I also felt that we'd done a good job explaining in our revision why we disagreed with the fundamental critique and request for eliminating a portion of our paper.
Transport in Porous Media 12.4
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I think it has a good editorial board. Because they have carefully reviewed the reviewers' comments and have seen the potential of my manuscript after the first decision. So they gave me another change by requesting a major revision. In addition, this journal accepts Latex format as the recommended one which is a good point since Latex compilers are Open Source and free to be used by everyone.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.4
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
RSC Advances 4.7
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Clinical Oral Investigations 25.7
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences 8.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Dentistry 8.0
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Remote Sensing 5.4
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was excellent and really improved the paper. Turnaround time from reviewers and the editor was very quick. This was probably the best experience I've had with a journal so far.
Pest Management Science 8.9
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review reports were of high quality and contained many helpful comments. The amount of time for reviews, revisions and editorial decisions was appropriate.
Oikos 11.1
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Animal Ecology 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oikos n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecology n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 5.4
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Environmental and Experimental Botany 6.0
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted