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
Landscape and Urban Planning 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Inventiones Mathematicae 2.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Rationality and Society 42.0
weeks
42.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were fair. One advised major revision, the other advised rejection. My main discontent with this process was its duration; it took 10 months for two reviews of about a page and a half.
Environment and Behavior n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick response and good explanation of reasons for immediate rejection.
Gerontologist 2.5
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick review times, and good reviews, too. Editor seemed to rely fully on the reviewers.
Schizophrenia Research 20.1
weeks
20.1
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: The Editor and the Reviewer contradicted each other
Computational Linguistics 6.5
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Chemical Physics 8.7
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewing process was handle quickly and carefully.
Higher Education n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Comparative Education 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering 34.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 7.0
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review was not fair.
Oncology 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I was pleased with the handling of my manuscript by this journal.
M√ľnster Journal of Mathematics 23.0
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Compositio Mathematica 10.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: We received a totally biased report. When we pointed this out to the editor, he made it clear that he was not interested in objectivity either.
Physica B: Condensed Matter n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My personal decision is: never more sending anything to Physica B. Of course, other authors may have different experiences with the magazine, but potential authors (especially those from developing countries) should be warned that editors and reviewers are prone to presenting offensive reports (which I believe, are prejudice-driven) and no fellow scienteist deserves that.
Anales de Psicologia 34.7
weeks
36.7
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: My main problems were:
- extreme slowness,
- poor content of a single review after 8 months,
- I had a hard time understanding the text of the review (since a misspelled Spanish word remained in the text, I assume it was translated from Spanish by a translator program).
Limnology and Oceanography 7.6
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The guidelines are clear and the submission process is very straightforward and does not waste time (e.g., the author submits one PDF as an email to the editor). The reviews were prompt, constructive, and mostly fair. The handling editor also made a correct judgement call to ignore one of the unfounded concerns of a reviewer who did not understand a key point. The review was prompt and all emails throughout the process were clear. A refreshing experience.
Ecology 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Although the ms was rejected, the reviewers were fair and prompt in their responses. They offered a great deal of useful feedback which helped us revise and create a much better manuscript, which was accepted at the next journal we submitted to.
Journal of Phycology 17.4
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were expert referees. They had many good and constructive comments. Even though the reviewers had certain substantive concerns in the first submission, they clearly saw the potential and were responsive to our significant efforts in revision. The editor was fair and prompt in responses.
Ecology 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was exceedingly dismissive and elitist in their commentary. The ms was largely criticized for its brevity. It was specifically made brief to fit into the 'Report' format that Ecology is advertising. In the end, I think they were right to reject it. I have no hard feelings. But it was a long process and the reviews were so dismissive it should have been short.
Journal of Sea Research 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was very fast (reviews and publication). I strongly recommend this journal.
Journal of Vegetation Science 7.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Great job by the handling editor. A bit slow during the first round but incredible fast during the second round. The handling editor also improved the text a lot.
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 6.0
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Knowledgeable reviewers responding with constructive criticism which improved the manuscript. Fairly swift review process.
Journal of Adolescence 7.8
weeks
9.5
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer match could have been better, but the editorial process went very smooth
Machine Learning n/a n/a 91.2
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Informetrics n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Technovation 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The referee did not read the paper but he/she rejected the paper with una sentence without motivation.
Logical Methods in Computer Science 78.1
weeks
121.5
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: First review in which reviewer confessed having only read approximately half of the paper. That's it. And it took three years from submission to publication.
Journal of Experimental Biology 2.0
weeks
4.2
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This was my first experience with this journal and I was totally impressed with the rapid responses and reasonable concerns.
Multibody System Dynamics 13.0
weeks
19.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were experts in the topic of the manuscript and their comments were very insightful and helped to improve the paper in substantial points. The whole publication process was relatively fast.
PLoS ONE 6.4
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Despite providing an array of choices of an associate editor familiar with the paper's subject, it was assigned to an associate editor with no familiarity with it, who in turn selected reviewers similarly unfamiliar with it (and in some cases hostile to this approach). Given that the journal may publish more papers on this approach than any other, this was very disappointing. Furthermore, there was a substantial delay in sending our the manuscript for re-review, after which one of the reviewers criticized our work for not including material that was uploaded as supplementary text (but through some journal glitch, the material was not available to the reviewer). Overall, a minor comedy of errors that could have been avoided with the journal selecting an AE familiar with the subject of the paper.
Molecular Ecology Resources 5.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was above average for efficiency of submission and the length of time necessary to obtain a set of reviews. The reviews themselves were the typical mixed bag. After revision, the manuscript was promptly re-reviewed. In all, a reasonable process from submission to acceptance.
British Journal of Surgery 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 6 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: A rejection i ok when you receive a proper review and in short time.
Colorectal Disease 13.0
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I only have good experiences with Colorectal Disease. I received an email from the editor when the first review took some time without me asking for it.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Genetics 4.3
weeks
8.8
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process was fair and reflected referee's comments
Cellular and Molecular Biology 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were not experts in the topic.
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)