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
Modern Law Review n/a n/a 30.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The summary of reasons for rejection was most helpful, illuminating both the strengths of the piece, the reason for rejection (the topic was too specific for the journal) and suggested revisions prior to submission elsewhere. This is valuable and appreciated.
European Journal of International Law n/a n/a 60.8
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The principal suggestion for improvement is to provide a summary of reasons for rejection instead of a boilerplate letter that gives the author guidance on whether the manuscript was unsuitable for reasons of topic (originality, topicality, subject-specificity), quality (research, analysis, writing) and/or other reasons. This need not be lengthy (one paragraph can suffice) but nevertheless is far more useful than a standard rejection letter that tells the author nothing, even on a general level.
Scientometrics 11.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Entomologica Fennica 14.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
World Politics n/a n/a 273.6
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This was a very long review, unconventional as it seemed the paper was reviewed by one reviewer only (a member of the editorial board I assume), and the feedback given by the editor was extremely short, unhelpful, and worryingly off topic. I will not submit a paper there again.
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 9.9
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
ACM Transactions on Information Systems 55.0
weeks
97.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal's entire turnaround was overly long, holding up my paper yet providing no help. The editor responded very slowly with my queries. Reviewers appear to change in different rounds, so all my revision based on previous reviewers' comments was in vain.
Cultural Sociology 26.0
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
PLoS ONE 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Aside from the initial review process taking 5 months for a journal who's motto is "accelerating peer reviewed research" I have several reservations about the appropriateness of both the handling editor and reviewers for my manuscripts. Both reviewers openly admitted a lack of basic knowledge of the statistical approaches used in the manuscript, yet critiqued the research for statistical reasons. One of the reasons for rejection given was based on an unsubstantiated opinion of one of the reviewers. The journal indicates that the appeal process takes longer than the initial review process so I am moving on. I will likely never review for this journal again, and will be pretty desperate before sending them another manuscript.
Social Science Research 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 5.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Cheminformatics 3.3
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This manuscript was a software article. Despite the following issue the reviewing process was fast and simple.

The manuscript had to revised and resubmitted three times because one of the reviewers had a problem with the software. However, fixing it was beyond the anonymous peer-reviewing-process since more (personal) information were needed. Finally, the editors (in agreement with the reviewer) accepted the manuscript and the software.

Still, all involved persons were always friendly and we never felt to have been treated unfairly. The suggestions by both reviewers were reasonable and improved both the manuscript and the software. We definitely recommend to submit to this journal!
Business Research 8.7
weeks
28.8
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Minerva 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reasonable review process. Editors acted upon advise by reviewers who had clear opinions about the manuscript and whose criticism was fair given the mismatch between the aims and scope of the journal, and the character of the manuscript.
American Journal of Infection Control 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were useful, and the communication with the journal editor/ team was easy and professional.
Research Evaluation 10.8
weeks
28.5
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The journal had bad luck in selecting a reviewer that gave some suggestions in the first round, and then, when these had been addressed in a revision, focused on different things in the second round and requested a whole other range of changes. A second reviewer right from the start might have balanced this and made the assessment fair and more complete in the first place. When after a third submission the journal finally brought another reviewer onboard (on my, the authors' request) this new reviewer had suggestions that in many ways would take the manuscript back to its original (first submission) form. Several of the changes and additions done in the previous two revisions (on request by reviewer 1) were now retracted/changed back again, to satisfy the second reviewer. Now in my view, this significantly improved the manuscript, and therefore it was worth it. To the credit of the journal editor shall be said that he/she recognized this and "sided" with the second reviewer (and me, the author) after the final submission, and accepted the manuscript swiftly.
Scientometrics 8.7
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Swift review process. Both editor and reviewers focused on improving the manuscript. Generally positive experience.
Rationality and Society 56.4
weeks
56.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Taking over 13 months to review an article, and then rejecting it, is a waste of valuable time that the scientific community cannot afford in these days, when rapid creation of a publication record is absolutely crucial for young people in the process of establishing themselves as independent scholars. Other journals manage to review manuscripts faster (see many other reviews on this webpage), and one round of reviews should not have to take over 13 months. This is said irrespective of the final decision (reject); I would express the same criticism also if the manuscript had been accepted.

It shall be added that (1) the manuscript was not sent to external reviewers until seven months after submission, which means the extreme delay was primarily on behalf of the journal's editors, and (2) the final decision was only conveyed to me (the author) after email reminders/repeated inquiries about the state of the review process. My overall impression of this journal is, therefore, that it cares little about its (potential) authors and is in great need of improving its routines for handling of manuscripts.
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 43.4
weeks
43.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Cognition 21.7
weeks
47.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Rather long review process but I received excellent reviews that helped improving the manuscript substantially.
Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: All reviewers have carefully studied the manuscript and gave valuable feedback. Their critique of my manuscript was fair and sound.
Journal of Economic Psychology 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: From my point of view, the reviewer was no expert in my field and it seemed that she/he did not read the manuscript carefully. She/He criticized the manipulation although I used a typical manipulation in this field. This was the main reason for rejection.
Swiss Journal of Psychology 28.2
weeks
31.2
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers have carefully read the paper and really improved it.
The reviewing process was quick.
Health Expectations 34.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Very prolonged wait for response (and even then I had to chase them up) and 1 (of 3) reviews was bizarre - exceptionally long, asserting editorial 'rules' not stated anywhere in the author guidance, describing rather commonplace assertions as "offensive" and using caps lock to emphasise where displeased. I felt like I had been trolled, and that the editor should have made some comment on this unusual mode of reviewing (or even simply excluded it and made the decision on the other 2 reviews). The other reviews were measured and helpful. I won't consider publishing here again.
Social Science and Medicine 15.2
weeks
21.2
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I was told by an editor that SSM has a very high rate of desk rejects (and I have been on the harsh end of this in the past), but as our piece was sent out I was very impressed by the efficiency of the process. Reviews were helpful and appropriate (although almost inevitably after 7 reviews some were starting to contradict each other). The paper was improved by the process and I will gladly publish with them again.
Demography 15.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Science Technology and Human Values 13.0
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: STHV editorial team was very supportive throughout the process and we fell that the paper has improved substantially thanks to the review process. Even though the paper has taken a bit long from submission to acceptance, it seems that this delay has been due mainly to the reviewers rather than the editorial team.
Journal of Crystal Growth 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Editors message - "Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that the Reviewer #1 is advising against publication of your work, suggesting that this paper might be better suited for a control journal. Therefore I must reject it."
With decision based on the reviewer 1 who also writes "Overall, the authors present an interesting approach." and reviewer 2 who writes "This paper is an important contribution to this area of research." Obviously the Editor generates decision on the 1st reviewer whose claims are not supported since similar works have been published in Journal of Crystal Growth. Not only that Editor does not give any chance to authors to refute reviewer's claims.
Applied Catalysis, B: Environmental 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: It took more than 3 months to get the feedback on the article. I appreciate useful comments, It allowed me to submit elsewhere the corrected version.
Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chemical 4.3
weeks
4.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The overall peer-review time was reasonable.The comments of the reviewers were clear. They helped to improve the paper considerably.
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 43.4
weeks
43.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It took 10 months after a number of solicitations to the associate editor (who claimed difficulties in finding reviewers). This could have been considered in the final decision since 10 months is not a short review time and reviews contained addressable comments in the end.
Multimedia Tools and Applications 8.7
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fair and well conducted process. Constructive comments by reviewers. Some reviewers claim were not well supported.
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 8.7
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor did not address plain contradictions in the statements of Reviewers, including the fact that one of the Reviewer took claims from the manuscript and cited them with opposite meaning in its own review (literally adding "not" in sentences). While it is acknoledgeable that review process may be discretionary on aspect such as general quality of paper, novelty, etc. plain contradictions should not be allowed to get through expecially when pointed out as the authors did. Unfortunately the only action proposed by EiC (when asked about the matter) was to undergo again a complete review cycle starting as if it was a new submission. The authors were skeptical this was a fair way to address the situation and did not proceed.
Statistics and Computing 26.0
weeks
48.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Computer Vision n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computer Vision and Image Understanding 14.3
weeks
25.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I have no specific complaints concerning the peer review process. The comments were clear and the overall peer-review time was reasonable.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 15.2
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: In the final decision, the editor referred only to the additional (negative) review, and not at all to the reviews from the first round or our changes to the manuscript.
West European Politics 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Comparative Political Studies 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer recommended acceptance, the other one was lukewarm but seems to have reviewed the paper in a real hurry.