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
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.)
Nucleic Acids Research 3.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: All the process was extremely rapid and editor's decision reflected referee's comments. Referees were very fair and constructive.
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 17.4
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good quality of reviewer's reports.
Long review process : 8 months between the submission and the acceptance.
Current Science 11.3
weeks
22.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I am satisfied with the reviewing process, only the time for the reviews could have been shorter.
Physical Review Letters 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Journals whose goal is to disseminate results of general relevance for a given community (physics in this case) have a very thin line to decide what is relevant and what is not. This is unfortunate, but true. The rejection of our paper was not based on scientific considerations, since the referees agreed out results were correct, but based on their personal judgement on whether they were relevant enough or not. This is of course inevitable in this kind of peer reviewed process
ZooKeys 6.5
weeks
7.2
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Completely satisfied with editorial process of this journal. Delays were really my doing. Could have been published much more rapidly. At each step I knew where ms was in process. Pensoft staff were responsive as was scientific editor. Also, post acceptance, Pensoft staff helped me write an effective press release that garnered considerable attention for the publication on science news websites.
Geometric and Functional Analysis 15.7
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor and the administrator handled this very professionally.
Journal of Functional Analysis 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Algebra 47.7
weeks
47.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Comedy Studies n/a n/a 182.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Foreign Affairs Review 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 2
(moderate)
Rejected
Astronomy and Astrophysics n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Astronomical Journal 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process for my paper took very long to find an adequate referee, but the referee itself took little time time with the paper, and deemed it well written but uninteresting for the journal.
Experimental Astronomy 11.9
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing time was perhaps longish, but the review was thorough, and improved the paper. Part of the reviewing time was during Christmas holidays, and I took as much time to implement the changes, so I think it is justified. Editorial changes were very straightforward to implement.
Geoforum 8.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We are very disappointed about our submission to this journal. Instead of sending our revised version to reviewers again, the editor decided to reject our manuscript after three months of waiting, without any descent comments why so. He/she referred to 'substantial issues' but refused to specify these.
Mobilities 13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Communication with the journal was very efficient, and the peer-review process was rather quick. We are very satisfied about our submission to this journal.
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 23.9
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Only one reviewer, quite short and poorly done. There was no criticism from the reviewer that could not have been addressed by a clarification of a very minor revision.
No other review report was provided.
Internet Research n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Memetic Computing 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer's comment were insightful, and the requests were sensible. The process was relatively fast, for a journal in my domain. Overall, I am satisfied.