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
Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering n/a n/a 56.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took the editor almost 3 weeks to make the decision to reject without review, which I found a bit long, but they apologized for the delay in the decision letter.
PLoS ONE 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: I had very bad experience on submitting in PLoS One. The review process took very long time and we received only one review comment.
Science Advances n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Advances in Water Resources 43.4
weeks
49.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I received first round of revision, including one reviewer and the AE, after ~10 months. The AE was quite positive. I revised and resubmitted. The sole reviewer that we got in the first round was fully satisfied but the AE had invited another reviewer who made some so-called major comments. Although these major comments were not rightful (some were even contradicted by the reviewer himself), the AE rejected the manuscript primarily because lack of sufficient novelty (which was indeed acknowledged by both reviewers). So, after ~15 months, I decided to submit this manuscript to another journal...
Advanced Materials 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
ICES Journal of Marine Science n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Was told that the paper was not novel enough for the journal.
International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems 4.0
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: IJTIS has a strong editorial team, led by Dr Marina Dabic. The quality of review reports is generally speaking very good, clear and has sufficient details (technical and conceptual) so that submitters can learn how to improve the manuscript without having to guess the reviewers' opinions. The only issue with the journal is sometimes the lag time from acceptance to final production is a bit too slow. But the quality of final product is absolutely satisfactory, and their copy-editing is of high quality too.
Small n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Lab on a Chip 5.3
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The first round of revision was totally reasonable. Although I responded to almost all the comments from the first round of reviewing, the second revision (probably a different person) gave the criticism, which led to the rejection. Although I did not think the criticism from the second revision was reasonable, I did not have a chance to rebut it.
Media, Culture and Society 18.6
weeks
41.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was very slow.
Scientific Reports Drawn back before first editorial decision after 45 days Drawn back
Motivation: The Journal was unable to assign an handling editor (from the Editorial Board) 45 days after the submission (the quality check took only 4 days), because, they said, the Journal has an "external" editorial board and editors reserves themselves the right to refuse to handle manuscripts.
Transformation Groups 31.4
weeks
31.4
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: not very serious as it took long for a rejection that has been not argumented at all
Industrial and Labor Relations Review n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The EIC was very kind and helpful. Despite my work was desk rejected and it took them three weeks to do so, I received helpful feedback to improve my paper.
Nature Communications 7.3
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers raised important points that, once addressed, significantly improved the manuscript. However, the second round of revisions took too long. The first reviewer accepted to revise the manuscript one more time and then apparently vanished into thin air. The editor waited a long time before contacting a replacement reviewer. We had to contact the editor to get feed back. Also, the online manuscript tracking system is not at all informative as our manuscript had been "under consideration" the whole time and never changed status. We are happy with the outcome and appreciated the comments made by the reviewers, but found the overall process very long.
Work, Employment and Society n/a n/a 61.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I have submitted an article for a special issue. After almost two months, I have received desk rejection without any comments apart from a note that they were overwhelmed with the number of submissions.
Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 2.3
weeks
2.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
British Journal of Industrial Relations n/a n/a 51.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal for Parasitology n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Pacific Journal of Mathematics 33.6
weeks
35.6
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process has been rather smooth
Journal of Hazardous Materials n/a n/a 114.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Gap between submission and editorial decision is too long with nearly 4 months.
Human Molecular Genetics 2.6
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
World Politics 17.6
weeks
25.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 5.0
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was fine so far. However, time between publication of online version and positive results of search engines is in the range of months.
Science of the Total Environment n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
American Journal of Political Science 9.9
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
European Journal of Political Research n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Political Science Review 10.6
weeks
29.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Language 43.3
weeks
43.3
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Unacceptably slow, black-boxed process and really weird editorial decisions. The first two reviews were positive by the editor's own admission but were judged not as detailed as optimal, so additional reviewers were invited, one of which turned out to be hostile to the approach. This hostile review, less detailed than the first two, then became the main reason for the editor to reject the ms.

Language has a reputable name, and I've published with them before (also with a >6mo handling time). I'll be advising anyone to steer clear from it, now that seemingly random editorial decisions are added to the ridiculously long handling time.
Ecological Indicators 6.0
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ageing Research Reviews 3.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 4.6
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
PLoS Computational Biology n/a n/a 63.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Waiting time too long for rejection without proofreading
Disease Models and Mechanisms: DMM 6.0
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Nature Biotechnology 23.1
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After submission, it took about 6 weeks until the editor responded and sent the manuscript for external review. Then it took another 11 weeks until they got comments back from only one reviewer after we emailed the editor several times. This extremely slow handling of the manuscript is just irresponsible and lack of efficiency.
PeerJ 7.6
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I had a great experience with PeerJ. Reviews were thoughtful and helpful. Reviewers also made their names available (not sure if this is optional or not). The submission process was thorough, and their submission system is very modern - for example, you can select which handling editors you recommend according to their expertise. I think the submission set up helps cut down on review time overall, which I really appreciate. They were very strict about including all data, code, and sampling permits, which takes time but is ethically extremely important. PeerJ sometimes waives publication fees as temporary promotions, so if you are concerned about the open-access fees make sure to check their website, social media, or with their managing editors.
Nature Communications 28.0
weeks
38.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews took an abnormally long time (28 weeks), and even then an incomplete set of reviews were sent. These review reports were good and helpful to improve the manuscript. Subsiquent rounds were less helpful.

The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.
Nature Communications 5.0
weeks
24.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall the review process did improve and add to the work and paper significantly. But then over 1.25yrs that was bound to happen even without review/editorial comments. Essentially we ended up with 1.5 papers worth of work. By then one of the reviewers - the one who had led to most of grunt work supplementary data addition to the manuscript - was pointing out our own conference abstract which we had presented about parts of the work meanwhile as reason for non-significance & non-novelty! Thankfully the editor didn't care for that one.
Higher Education 27.7
weeks
41.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 11.7
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were very strong and very constructive but still surprised with the editor's decision after all the efforts that we put in.