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
Polymers 2.0
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Tribology International 6.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Tribology International has drastically improved their handling of manuscripts since I last submitted a manuscript. Excellent work!
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 11.9
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of the Electrochemical Society 3.6
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Current Biology 1.9
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This was the fastest review process that I ever experienced. The presubmission enquiry is very helpful.
Sociological Spectrum 7.7
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Timely, professional review process. Good comments from reviewers that improved the manuscript.
PLoS ONE 9.0
weeks
53.4
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: This was a very slow and challenging process. Our original reviews were not well thought out, but after we responded to them the editor accepted the paper. But then the journal reversed that decision and sent us four additional reviews on top of the additional 3 to respond to. Then once we addressed all of those it took another 6 months for them to assign us a new editor and make a decision. It seems that they are struggling to find enough editors to handle all of the submissions they are receiving. While the staff at the journal were pleasant and did their best, I will not be submitting to PLOS ONE again unless I hear they've gotten this issue under control.
Current Biology 3.6
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This was the best review experience I've had so far. After sending a presubmission inquiry, we got a positive response within a couple of hours. After submitting the manuscript, the review process was exceptionally fast (4 reviewer reports within less than 4 weeks). Based on the reviewer's comments, we could see that they were clearly experts in the field, and even though some of their comments were difficult to address, they were very helpful to considerably improve the quality of the manuscript. Moreover, whenever we had a question to the editorial office, they always responded within just a few hours. All in all, we were very impressed by the quality of the review reports and how the editor & editorial office handled our manuscript throughout all stages of the review process.
IEEE Intelligent Systems 22.7
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I submitted in July. After months of being "under review", and no response to any emails, we received rejection on new year's eve.
From a different editor.
Who couldn't spell the name of their own journal.
Who quoted our own conclusions as a reason for rejection.
In an email with more spelling and grammar mistakes than there were lines in the email.
Finally, the rejection was stated as being due to the paper being unsuited for being sent to review. After 5 months under review!
We received no reply, or reviewer's reports, despite contacting the journal for an appeal.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 3.1
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Elife n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Corrosion Science n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Geologica Carpathica 16.7
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was reviewed by experts in the field who gave constructive comments.
Nature Human Behavior n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We send a detailed presubmission enquiry about a Registered Report and received an invitation to submit. When we submitted the 'Stage 1' RR, we received a desk rejection four weeks later.
Nature Ecology and Evolution n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Climate Change n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fluent process, high quality reviews, relatively fast
Sociology of Health and Illness 20.3
weeks
20.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: slow review, one reviewer argued for rejection, but two others more positive not taken into account
PLoS ONE 5.9
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Macromolecules 7.6
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Psychophysiology 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Nature n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. While we have no doubt that your findings will be of significant interest to fellow specialists, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the paper contains the sort of advance in our understanding of ... that would justify publication in Nature. We instead feel that the present paper would find a more appropriate outlet in another journal.
P.S. Although we are unable to offer to publish your paper in Nature, you may wish to consider Nature Communications as an outlet for your research (if so, please see the link below). Nature Communications is, however, editorially independent and therefore I can't guarantee that they would find your manuscript appropriate for their journal.
Cement and Concrete Composites 41.6
weeks
53.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The whole review process took extremely long. The editor(s) did not react to our emails.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 18.9
weeks
50.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The waiting time for a first response was very long (from August, 2016 until January, 2017) over the expected/average 54 days showed on the journals page (http://www.springer.com/environment/monitoring+-+environmental+analysis/journal/10661). After resubmitting the paper, the final response also took a long time (February, 2017 until September, 2017), considering that just minor chances were made to the paper.
After acceptance, the publishing process was fast and well handled.
Fuel n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Neurophysiology 1.4
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 8.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Community Health 1.6
weeks
1.6
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 4
(very good)
Rejected
Maternal and Child Health Journal 42.6
weeks
42.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: A message "Editor assignment pending" was seen in the editorial system during 270 days (almost 9 months). My 4 letters to the editors received no answer or automatic answer "Your paper is with the editor for his evaluation and the review process will be initiated soon". I just planned to withdraw the manuscript when at last I got the message "Under review" and after a month rejection.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast editorial rejection, stated reason was that the findings were not "sufficiently striking".
European Accounting Review n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision was well justified with a quick turnaround time and with wise advices.
Fuel n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Drawn back before first editorial decision after 244 days Drawn back
Motivation: I believe it is completely unacceptable from a BioMed Central journal (charging USD 2,145 for publishing a paper) not to come to even a first editorial decision for 8 months. This happened despite numerous contacts with the editorial office during these months. Also, it was impossible to get into contact with the handling editor; we were able to reach editorial assistants only.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B 9.0
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 7 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
ACS Photonics 3.9
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Referee reports were of high quality and improved the manuscript. Overall experience with the journal was good.
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)