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
Hypertension 2.0
weeks		 3.0
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Serious journal that respect the timing
Journal of Sexual Medicine 17.4
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 4 1
(bad)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: They spend 4 months with my article without any feedback. Later it was accepted.
BMC Psychiatry 17.4
weeks		 18.9
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
BMC Infectious Diseases 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The review process was too long. The journal did not respond my emails when I asked for an update of the manuscript status.
Geological Magazine 19.5
weeks		 19.5
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: waiting for 9-11 month to show our paper online is not productive for a researchers.
Blood n/a n/a 1.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cancer Research 9.0
weeks		 9.0
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Machining Science and Technology 6.0
weeks		 8.0
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: This is the first time I submitted a research paper to MST and I am fully satisfied with the review process as well as editorial assistance.
FEBS Journal n/a n/a 14.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology 0.3
weeks		 2.3
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Comunication with Editorial office was very good.
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 13.0
weeks		 15.0
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very serious and professional in all the steps
International Journal of Intelligent Systems Immediately accepted after 95.5 weeks Accepted (im.)
PLoS ONE 4.3
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The Editor did not realise that the reviewer were not competent in the field
Journal of Endocrinology 4.3
weeks		 6.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The Review of the manuscript was constructive and improved our work.
Journal of Forestry Research 8.7
weeks		 10.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: From submission to final acceptance through reviews everything was highly satisfactory but they failed to give author's copy even after repeated mails to the journal office. Finally I had to get in touch with the Editor-in-chief and one of his assistance sent me a .pdf of my article.
Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 60.8
weeks		 62.8
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
DNA Repair 2.0
weeks		 2.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very quick and professional review process.
Environmental Fluid Mechanics 13.0
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Engineering Failure Analysis 5.2
weeks		 9.5
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The best thing with this journal :
1. Faster review process
2. Better feedback after review
Photogrammetric Record 21.7
weeks		 27.1
weeks		 n/a 7 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process of this journal is satisfing.
Przeglad Elektrotechniczny 3.0
weeks		 4.4
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Biosystems Engineering 26.0
weeks		 99.8
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Accepted
Livestock Science 5.0
weeks		 5.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The suggestions of reviewers were correct, very useful and well formulated. The editor also made good suggestions on the last version of the manuscript.
Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 9.0
weeks		 9.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Thanks
Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 7.3
weeks		 24.6
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: Thanks
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.