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 of Non-Crystalline Solids 3.1
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Good expertise of the referees, fast overall review and production process.
Thin Solid Films 3.6
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Good referees expertise and fast communication.
Biomass and Bioenergy Drawn back before first editorial decision after 616 days Drawn back
Motivation: Our manuscript was under review in Biomass & Bioenergy for over 21 months without a first decision. Contacting the journal manager or editor did not help speed up the process. Things seemed to move forward but the process was never completed. After 21 months we withdrew the manuscript. For the last two months the manuscript was “under editor evaluation”. According to the journal manager, the associate editor had received all the needed reviewer reports. However, he was unable to make a decision. We got no response to our attempt to contact him.
Consciousness and Cognition 7.5
weeks
8.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 20.1
weeks
27.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This long-term experiment was very complex, and this journal required a stringent synthesis of the most important outcomes. It was not easy to present 30 years of data in a reduced number of figures and table allowed by the journal. However, I believe that the final results was rewarding. Also the editorial office devoted much effort in evaluating wether this manuscript was prepared in compliance with the instructions for authors.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 22.3
weeks
22.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: It took 5 months for the review to be completed. At the end I received 5 short paragraphs in all from 2 reviewers, of which 2 paragraphs contained the summaries of the manuscript written by the reviewers. In the remaining 3 short paragraphs, it seemed that the reviewers missed the main thrust of the paper and directed their criticism at secondary aspects. Although this criticism was fair, and was addressed in a version submitted later, I do not believe that it needed 5 months of review, which wasted significant time. As I asked for an update at around 4.5 months after submission, I am not sure if the review would have taken longer had I not asked.
Angewandte Chemie n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The response was "unfortunately we have to inform you that it is not suitable for publication in Angewandte Chemie as the journal publishes only reviews, minireviews, highlights, essays, and short communications (see our "Notice to Authors" on the web). Your manuscript, on the other hand, is a full-length original paper and should thus be submitted to an appropriate journal."
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 13.6
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Social Politics 45.0
weeks
45.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
World Development 32.1
weeks
32.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Valuable comments of one of the reviewers helped to address the gaps of the paper. We resubmitted the paper to another journal.
Journal of Personality 7.7
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: My manuscript was handled in a timely and professional manner. I thought the reviewers and the editor provided thoughtful suggestions and reasonable critiques.
Journal of Consumer Psychology n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Human Behavior n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biology Letters 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nature Communications 9.7
weeks
52.3
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After the 2nd round of review, the Editor decided to reject the manuscript. Following this we requested an appeal (on December 20th, 2016) given the positive comments of Referees 1 and 2, and our feeling that Referee 3 was biased and that his only interest was to see that a competing hypothesis be not published. The Editor accepted our appeal request on March 3, 2017 and sent again to the same reviewers the revised manuscript. The 3 referees decline the offer to review again the manuscript and the Editor recruited other 2 referees. As alternative for Reviewer #3 chose Referee #5 that is not only a member of the same institute of Referee 3, but he is also part of the same working group: thus, the probability that Referee 5 would have the same conflict of interest as Referee 3 was surely very high. Infact referee 5 suggested rejection and the Editor despite the enthusiastic comments of Referee 4 declined publication of our manuscript .
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 4.7
weeks
4.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Chemistry of Materials 11.7
weeks
24.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Applied Catalysis, A: General n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Chemical Engineering Journal 9.3
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
ACS Catalysis n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Materials Chemistry n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Angewandte Chemie 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Applied Catalysis, B: Environmental 5.9
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Applied Physics Letters n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Advanced Functional Materials n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Applied Catalysis, A: General 6.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Translational Psychiatry 7.9
weeks
30.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The submission process was easy and relatively fast. The reviews were reasonable and timely, particularly in the revision process.
Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 75.0
weeks
75.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: For such a short article, more than a year and a half to review seems excessive to me. On the plus side the article was accepted, so I am happy with the final outcome.
Neurobiology of Stress 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Although not the result we were hoping for, the review process was fast, the reviews were reasonable and the editorial decision was fair.
Translational Psychiatry n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Not the result we hoped for, but it was a really fast response.
Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I submitted two papers and they were rejected despite there are many more published papers by the same journal at the same period with the same tools and methods which my papers rejected for.
Scientific Reports 9.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: This was the worst experience I have had in submitting a manuscript. As noted by others, the submission process was extremely slow - it took 3 weeks for the journal to simply acknowledge receipt of the manuscript on each submission. The review process was also quite opaque. After the first round of reviews, we received one review (labelled 'Reviewer 2', there was no Reviewer 1), which was poorly written and did not seem to be from an expert in the field. We felt that the comments were quite superficial and required only minor revisions and we addressed them as such, however the response from the board member indicated that extra experiments were required (this was certainly not made clear in the initial decision letter, which contained only one sentence from the editorial board member). We cited existing literature to support our responses but were told that this was unacceptable. Quite frankly, the claims made by this journal that they are 'fast', 'rigorous' and 'open' are, in my experience, completely misleading. I would never submit here again.
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces n/a n/a 25.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Weather, Climate and Society 7.9
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Infection 7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Acta Physica Polonica, A Drawn back before first editorial decision after 254 days Drawn back
Motivation: This journal uses an inutile method in the submission process (by email). In this case one can not be sure if his submitted paper is seen by the editorial members or not. As well as my paper has take more than 9 months after sending by email to this journal without hearing any thing about it. Eventually, we decided to withdraw it from this journal.
Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 13.4
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 2.7
weeks
12.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Biological Chemistry 2.7
weeks
2.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Experimental Cell Research 3.3
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The revised version should have been submitted within 90 days, but we asked for the extension of the dead line and they accepted the extension immediately.