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
Science Communication n/a n/a 24.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Social Problems 23.0
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Spatial Statistics 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Applied Statistics Drawn back before first editorial decision after 288 days Drawn back
Motivation: The Editor-in-Chief suggested withdrawal of the manuscript as he was unable to find reviewers.
Methodology Drawn back before first editorial decision after 115 days Drawn back
Motivation: I never received an acknowledge of reception; I wrote three times to the editor to know what was going on. I finally withdrew my manuscript. A few weeks later, I finally got a message from the editor apologizing.
Environmental Health Perspectives 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quiet effiecient. The text of the manuscript was checked by the journal and the figures were also revised for the design of the journal. The fees were fairly low in comparison to other journals (750 USD).
Climatic Change 34.7
weeks
69.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The review required too much time!
Diseases of the Esophagus 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal and reviewers clearly did not care for the manuscript - the comments were not really formative, just not good enough. Immediately resubmitted to a different journal with a more broad focus but higher IF: accepted immediately.
Digestive Diseases and Sciences 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Well handles, slightly slow review process but no real problems.
Organizational Research Methods 5.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional handling with great comments and low response time.
International Business Review 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reason for rejection was very vague and indicated that the paper had not been read thoroughly.
European Journal of Marketing 46.9
weeks
75.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was extremely long with reviewer comments pointing in very different directions. While some of the comments were good and did improve the quality of the paper, it cannot justify the long waiting period.
Journal of Applied Statistics 39.1
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers' comments were useful but the length of time for the manuscript to be assigned reviewers, the time it took to receive the reviewer's reports after being assigned to reviewers and the length of time it took to receive responses to emails was excessive.
Geoderma 5.7
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Computers and Geosciences n/a n/a 49.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Geosciences Journal 77.3
weeks
84.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The suggestions for improvements given by the referees were very close to corrections, I wished I had already done in the first submission. Statements I had provided were addressed, and my arguments for not changing them were obviously accepted. The discussion was improved by adding a few additional descriptive data, which supported the main idea and conclusion.
European Journal of Population 18.6
weeks
34.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Demography 71.6
weeks
71.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Applied Research in Quality of Life 9.3
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Social Indicators Research 20.1
weeks
27.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Cities 30.4
weeks
61.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was a little bit too long. However, communication with the editor was perfect.
Journal of Happiness Studies 17.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: After more than 4 months I received about 8 lines of comments from each of reviewers.
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick decision, however the reason for rejection is still not clear to me; they stated that my paper was "primarily exploratory".
Journal of Geometry and Physics 57.9
weeks
65.9
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The comments were all reasonable but the process has been extremely slow
New Zealand Journal of Botany 6.5
weeks
6.5
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer clearly hadn't read the manuscript. Comments were contradictory
Waste and Biomass Valorization 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Economic Inquiry 34.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Demography 43.4
weeks
43.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Cell Science 4.0
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: We appreciated the fact that the editor commit himself in the revision process. We had to make some changes after the acceptance and the editorial office responded very kindly to our demands.
Journal of Neuroscience 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Molecular Biology and Evolution n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular Biology and Evolution n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Systematic Biology 12.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Psychological Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 7.9
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I am satisfied with speed of the review process. But reviewer comments were often poorly understood or not well-founded.
Polymer Reviews 1.0
weeks
1.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Mountain Research and Development 65.1
weeks
65.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Agroforestry Systems 43.4
weeks
60.8
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted