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
Aging Cell 8.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Environmental Reviews 8.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editors were very picky regarding permissions from journals for using data from other articles in a table (explicitly identified as being from another source). it was difficult to get the permissions (especially from Elsevier) and this added about a month onto the process after the editorial acceptance of the article
Ecological Monographs 7.0
weeks
10.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The overall experience was very good. Reviewers provided constructive comments that helped to improve the manuscript. Waiting ca. 2 month for a review response was acceptable, given the length of the manuscript. At the proof stage, correspondence with the editorial team helped a lot to quickly finalize the layout.
Geochemical Transactions 8.7
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: It took extremely long, the internet system did not work properly, I had to send emails many times to hear back about my manuscript, etc...
Environmental and Experimental Botany 5.7
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Given the great difference in the opinions of the two reviewers, the editor made a huge effort to personally check the MS, acting as third reviewer and reconsidering the work as worth to be published.
Geobiology 13.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: the overall process was OK. The review was very constructive. It just took too long between the acceptance and the proofs. Publication occured even at a later stage (early 2011) although the corrected proofs were already online since october, 26 2010.
PLoS ONE 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
American Journal of Botany 7.9
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editors of this journal were very responsive to my questions and concerns; they responded quickly to any emails I sent and were easy to work with. The review process was efficient as well. This was an invited submission to a special issue (though it still went out for peer review), so I'm not sure if the process was any different than a standard submission.
Climatic Change 21.9
weeks
21.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Climatic Change 16.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 6.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Environmental Modelling and Software 25.1
weeks
25.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Environmental Modelling and Software 12.0
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Landscape and Urban Planning 9.7
weeks
40.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Journal of Experimental Biology 8.7
weeks
12.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor took an active role in the review, clearly carefully reading both the reviewer comments and our responses. The reviewers were constructive in their comments, and willing to accept arguments made about how or why things were done as they were. Finally, the submission process is very straightforward: only a simple PDF, with minimal formatting, is needed. All major formatting is done after acceptance, which would save a lot of time if the paper is eventually rejected.
Global Change Biology 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Climate Research 7.6
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick but thorough review process
Many reviewers (5 in our case), who's comments can improve the paper
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biodegradation 21.7
weeks
28.2
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: too much time for review. reviews only wanted reorganisation and push some data to supplementary material
Psychopharmacology Immediately accepted after 0.9 weeks Accepted (im.)
Psychopharmacology 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review provided was not from a specialist in the field and contained suggestions that were not pertinent to the research. The rejection was contested and the paper was accepted by editorial decision.
Protoplasma 6.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Schizophrenia Research n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Biological Chemistry 2.7
weeks
2.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Turn around time with reviewers was very quick, queries on initial submission were answered on the same day. Automated submission system is very efficient.
Biochemical Journal 6.6
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The Biochemical Journal handles the submission/review/revision and decision process extremely professionally. Email confirmations from the automated submission system are clear and interaction with the staff generates quick and efficient replies.
Functional Plant Biology 4.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Acting as an editor myself I know that it becomes more and more complicated to identify colleagues willing to act as a reviewer and to respond in time. Therefore editors tend to rely on "fast responding colleagues". These have developed some routine in handling manuscripts, but they are not necessarily outstanding experts in the field of research an individual manuscript is dealing with. Therefore it may be quite complicated to have a manuscript accepted if its topic is not trendy or if it is trans-disciplinary rather than focusing on a specific aspect.
South African Journal of Science 5.0
weeks
11.5
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Economic Growth 17.4
weeks
46.8
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Molecular Ecology Resources 10.0
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent communication. Good reviews. Great editorial work
Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 8.7
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was very fast and very efficient. The Editor himself also suggested small changes that improved the manuscript. I felt that my manuscript received all the necessary attention, and the proofs had almost no errors. I am very happy with the whole procedure.
Estuaries and Coasts 26.0
weeks
32.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers were very helpful, clearly well chosen for style of paper.
Timely production, on par with other journals and much better than some. Delay between acceptance and production was to a large extend due to the time that I took to make corrections.
Journal of Applied Statistics 8.7
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 0.7
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
ISME Journal 11.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: I wasn't satisfied with proofing process after my manuscript was accepted.
The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: After 3 months I ma still waiting, editor says that the reviewer are busy and they will get to my paper soon, that was 3 weeks ago, now entering 4 month sinc esubmission. Prior experience, took 9 months for reviews abd finally was rejected, only to be publish withni 6 weeks in another journal.
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 3.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers and Editor are really professionnal and respectfull. I submitted many times to this journal and I was always treated professionnally
Cognitive Systems Research 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: My experience with Cognitive Systems Research Journal was very positive. The review process improved the article and I was very pleased with the final result.
Language Learning 10.8
weeks
10.8
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient process throughout. Editor offered many detailed suggestions for improving the final draft.
Sociological Quarterly 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Good journal, fast turn around. Very satisfied.
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 4.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted