Submit review Create journal list

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
Comparative Education 23.0
weeks		 23.0
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 1
(bad)		 Rejected
European Physical Journal, B Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: My paper was accepted within one month. This is probably because it was not sent to external referees. At least I did not receive any referee reports.
Physical Review E n/a n/a 8.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My paper was rejected by an associate editor without sending it to external reviewers. Although I believe my paper to be of similar quality as other papers that do get published in the journal, I was happy that it took only about a week to receive the rejection message. So little time was lost.
Population, Space and Place 15.2
weeks		 15.2
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Health Affairs n/a n/a 4.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Archives of Sexual Behavior 34.7
weeks		 65.1
weeks		 n/a 3 2
(moderate)		 2
(moderate)		 Drawn back
American Review of Public Administration 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Administration and Society 21.7
weeks		 21.7
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Lancet Oncology n/a n/a 0.1
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejection within 1hour.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering n/a n/a 121.6
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I have never experienced similar in my 20-years research, incl about 100 paper submissions.
One month after the rejection we finally got an explanation from the editor:
"It should be an initial reject as it is a narrow study limited to Norwegian shelf and does not add value to the readers."
In fact, the paper does not deal with the Norwegian shelf at all - it deals with the rig market in Gulf of Mexico...
Demography 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 4 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Social Science and Medicine 5.0
weeks		 16.0
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The process started very well and quick. However, after the first round the remaining referee came up with questionable accusations of scientific dishonesty. I feel that the editor could have cut the process short after the first round of revisions. That would have saved 3 months of nonsense.
Review of Economic Studies n/a n/a 8.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the European Economic Association n/a n/a 7.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Public Economics 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
TESOL Quarterly 6.0
weeks		 6.0
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: First of all, there was a delay of several weeks without even an acknowledgement that the paper had been received. Then when I enquired I got the reviews suspiciously soon - almost by return. But the biggest problem was the lack of expertise/knowledge of the world of TESOL on the part of the reviewers, and their close-mindedness about having their views challenged.
ELT Journal 4.0
weeks		 4.0
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Motivation: In my view it should have been a 'recommend revision and resubmission' decision. Instead, two of the reviewers seemed more concerned with the offence that might be caused to the 'high and mighty' in the profession.
ELT Journal 4.0
weeks		 4.0
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers didn't really appear to have engaged sufficiently with the details of the text, and/or make enough effort to understand it properly.
Applied Linguistics n/a n/a 1.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reasons given for rejection were not detailed enough.
American Journal of Criminal Justice 4.3
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Journal of Criminal Justice n/a n/a 15.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Emerging Markets Review 69.4
weeks		 69.4
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Strategic Management Journal n/a n/a 7.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor's rejection was well motivated and useful
Palliative Medicine 8.0
weeks		 8.6
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast, especially acceptance after revision and resubmission. One of the reviewers' reports was not very helpful as it did not address the content of the manuscript.
Journal of Crystal Growth 5.0
weeks		 6.4
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Everything was OK, I can recommend this journal.
Crystal Growth and Design 4.3
weeks		 6.3
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: My article was very complex and also a bit speculative when I submitted it. Both reviewer were evidently experts in my field (crystallography) and both found the weak spots of the article. But, both were absolutely polite and VERY CONSTRUCTIVE in their comments. I received from them around 10 pages of text. This shows how much work the reviewers had to spend on my article. Even though their comment cut to the bone, I was quite impressed with the quality of the reviews.
I also want to commend this journal on the speed with which they publish the accepted articles. It took only 6 weeks from acceptance to a printed issue (and full citation).
Fuel 4.0
weeks		 4.0
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Biomass and Bioenergy 78.1
weeks		 78.1
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The editor rejected the paper without a reason and after 18 months of revision.
Social Indicators Research 3.0
weeks		 6.0
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The entire process was pretty quick. The Editor works at a fast pace, I think.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) 17.4
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer said "reject" the other reviewer said "revise and resubmit." The editor chose to reject it, which is fine. The reviewer comments are pretty helpful. I believe I would have a stronger paper once I address the reviewer comments.
Angewandte Chemie n/a n/a 14.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our paper was a major improvement of a previous, rather questionable paper published in Angewandte Chemie by a big name in the field. However, it was rejected based on the fact that the topic was not interesting enough. So, why could the big name prof. publish his work? This makes no sense is is not a fair process.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There was really no justification except its not interesting enough to a broad readership. However, they have, over the past years, published much more specialized papers from the big names in the field. I guess the name is more important than the scientific quality.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: I would have appreciated a speedier rejection since the overall reason was that the subject was not of suficcient interest
Journal of Medical Internet Research n/a n/a 1.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I asked a specific question about the requirements for clinical trials pre-registration and received an immediate reply from the editor stating that our paper did not meet their requirements, but might be considered for publication in their sister journal for feasibility trials. I am very grateful to have received such a clear, prompt response.
Journal of Positive Psychology 17.4
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The delay in receiving reviews was quite long, but the editor was very responsive to my queries and explained that it was due to issues with the reviewers that were, in my opinion, beyond their control.
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 26.0
weeks		 30.4
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review took 6 months, and the report was quite generic
Communications in Partial Differential Equations 56.4
weeks		 57.4
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review took more than a year for a paper which was not so long
Annales de l'Institut Fourier 26.0
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Motivation: Referee's report was not shown to the authors
Journal of Functional Analysis 30.4
weeks		 30.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: High level journal, but the delays are sometimes unpredictable
Archiv der Mathematik 17.4
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Quite rapid, rare for a pure mathematics journal