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
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The article was assigned to an editor, who stated that it was not of interest to the journal. The submitted paper was a mortality study based on workplace conditions, but the editor to which the article was assigned has only published in the field of post-colonial literature analysis. It was difficult to understand why that individual was an editor at this journal.
Journal of Biosocial Science 8.7
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ethnic and Racial Studies 19.5
weeks
19.5
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Comparative Political Studies 11.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: decent reviews, overall duration acceptable
Journal of Politics 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: quick process, useful reviews
European Journal of Political Research 8.0
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: strong reviewers; overall duration was fine; very quick to go online after acceptance
Agricultural Systems 7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Sociological Research Online 13.0
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: very good review process which made the manuscript substantially better
not superfast, but equally time is given to properly review a manuscript
Cambridge Journal of Economics 52.1
weeks
60.8
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I got referees' report within 8 months and the decision to publish by four more months (rather two months after my submission of the revised version) -within 5 months it was available online as advance access and by next 5 months it was published
Journal of Macroeconomics 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was rejected on the basis of a reviewer comment which however was not made available to me.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) 7.5
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I was always promtely infromed about any progress in the revision process. The editor was extremely professional and read carefully the manuscript in each step of the revision process. One of the referee reports was very very short and not praticularly useful. However the editor had a lot of very good suggestions which greatly improved the manuscript.
Journal of Common Market Studies 13.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Criminology 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I have had papers accepted and rejected at Criminology under the current editorial team—Osgood, Gartner, and Baumer. The team is extremely efficient and professional. The review process is very quick, authors normally receive four reviews, and the reviews are generally thoughtful and knowledgeable. The editors actually read the submitted paper and reviewers’ comments, and they explain which comments are important and which comments are less important. When they have rejected one of my papers, the editors have provided 1-2 pages of comments explaining their decision.
Physica Scripta 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: In my opinion the referees did not apply the same evaluation criteria that was probably applied to the previously published papers on which my manuscript was based.
PLoS ONE 3.0
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Radiology 3.5
weeks
5.5
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Langmuir 4.3
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers, at least one of them wanted to reject the paper from the beginning, and he/she attached very much to this idea and consequently followed that. The review was filled alway: i feel that, i feel those thing - nothing objective. It seems pure competition and in that situation he/she had the right to act on this very much.
Separation and Purification Technology 5.7
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I have very positive opinion on this review process!
Advanced Robotics 30.4
weeks
47.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The revision process of this paper submitted to Advanced Robotics, one amongst the dozen of journals in robotics with impact factor nowadays, was quite unique to me. As such, I hope that other authors may bear that in mind as this may be considered as an outlier on the journal's evaluation.

After having two papers accepted at the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR2011), me, as other authors who had papers accepted at the conference, were invited to submit an extended version of their works to a Special Issue on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics, in the journal of Advanced Robotics. As such, I did so.
As we know, Special Issues do not follow the exact same rules as most regular issues. Typically, external editors are invited to take care of the process and they need to do so faster than usual as there is a tight schedule to maintain. This is why I got worried when I received the following e-mail 3 months after the submission:
"Today the Editorial Committee of Advanced Robotics needs to inform you of the serious trouble we have faced. The server, we have rented, has crushed on 20 June 2012, and on 25 June 2012 we have been informed from the server company that all of the data, including uploaded files as well as the back-up data, have been lost."
In other words, my paper got lost.

Knowing about these deadlines, I tried to resubmit once again to the Special Issue. Unfortunately, despite the considerably positive feedback from the reviewers, 4 months later, the editor-in-chief decided to reject my paper since "it is not clear the proposed methods are useful in search and rescue missions". Nevertheless, the editor-in-chief invited to resubmit it, based on the almost nonexistent reviews, to the regular issue of the journal. The paper was then accepted to the regular issue, without further revisions, 4 months later, and published another 6 months later.

That being said, I do think that this was an exception and I do believe in the quality of the journal. Therefore, I do expect that this experience won't be shared by anyone else.
Computer Vision and Image Understanding n/a n/a 30.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I cannot say much about Computer Vision and Image Understanding (Elsevier). The paper was sent to this journal and considered "not suitable for publication in the journal" because of "limited interest to the CVIU readership".
That being said, perhaps the paper about image detection and estimation techniques was not suitable to a journal on computer vision...
Pattern Analysis and Applications 34.7
weeks
86.8
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Pattern Analysis and Applications (PAA) is a considerably known Springer journal with average to high quality papers. The reviews were, in general, scientifically constructive and helped to slightly improve the overall paper. However, the duration of the whole process was unbearable. Between the moment I submitted the paper, until it was finally accepted, 1 year and a half had passed. As if this wasn't enough, although the paper became with the "in press" status after some few months (+ 2 months), it was only published in the corresponding volume and issue 1 year and 1 month after. In other words, the paper was written and submitted in 2010, but it will be cited it as being from 2013.
To keep it short, if time isn't an issue, than I recommend submitting papers to PAA. Else, if time is of the essence, as it is for me, then just search for an alternative.
Landscape and Urban Planning n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
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.
Münster 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.