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
Signal Processing: Image Communication 7.0
weeks		 16.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Our experience was good, the reviews were constructive (and kind) and, though the second review took a little longer than the first, we felt that, overall, response was very quick.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 6.0
weeks		 8.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Review process was painless really. Reviews were useful; they had opposite views which really helped develop some of the work. Timings above are to the best of memory.

The only real issue, small but annoying, was the journal website said APA referencing style 3, on submission the editor initially instantly rejected it as he said APA 5, but the reviewers were on APA 6 (or other). This took a while to fix, but was just tedious.

It would be great if Journals would create an Endnote/other style for download, it might seem lazy, but it would save everyone time and allow focus on the actual detail of the work. It would also allow for changes in referencing styles to easily fixed/updated.
Ecology 6.5
weeks		 6.5
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Aquatic Sciences 8.7
weeks		 9.7
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Russian Review 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: One of the reviewers recommended revision. This reviewer had read the text and the feedback was generally constructive and sensible. The second reviewer rejected the manuscript outright on grounds other than the content of the manuscript. The second reviewer's comments were a systematic deconstruction/rejection of the paper with little evidence that the paper had been read and the content understood. I contacted Russian Review and asked them to send me a copy of their instructions for peer reviewers and I was told they have none (!)
Industrial Relations 10.8
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The referee reports were really clear and the communication with the editorial staff was smooth. The few queries I had were hadled quickly and professionally
Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis 13.0
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I got two referees, one extremely helpful and one not-so-helpful. I am very satisfied overall with the delays and quality of reviews.
Nucleic Acids Research 4.0
weeks		 4.0
weeks		 n/a 4 2
(moderate)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 4.3
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: I was impressed by the speed of the review process.
Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 0.7
weeks		 0.7
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Mathematische Annalen 8.7
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
American Anthropologist 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 5 1
(bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: No engagement with positive aspects of review, minimal advise on improvement.
International Feminist Journal of Politics 8.7
weeks		 15.2
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The handling was overall efficient, cordial, and fair. The publication time (from acceptance to print) was 1 year. Insistence on word limits added to the difficulty of finalizing. Handling of figures did not allow colour reproductions, even for electronic version without substantial cost, and figure space counts towards word limit, making the task even more difficult.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 0.1
weeks		 6.1
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Online publishing system for sending a little messy. The editor replied quickly. One of the reviewers did not respond for a long time, although his comments related only to the style of the text.
Physical Review E 10.8
weeks		 10.8
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: It took two months or so to get two reviews (which were really helpful by the way), but what makes this submission remarkable is that the editor had to contact 11 peers to get these two reviews. Some people immediately refused to review the paper, but most of them just did not respond to the editor requests. The editor handled the process really well; he or she managed to provide timely feedback even given the lack of response from the reviewers.
IATSS Research 23.9
weeks		 24.2
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast, constructive comments
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 7.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Physical Review E 8.7
weeks		 36.9
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The second round of review lasted for more than 6 months. After the first round we had one positive and one negative review, so the editor decided to send the paper to one more reviewer. Apparently, it was the search for the new reviewer that took so much time. Finally, the paper was rejected even given that the new reviewer provided quite constructive criticism that in principle could be addressed in a minor revision of the paper.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 3 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 6.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS Biology n/a n/a 38.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Evolution 6.6
weeks		 10.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers and editors provided excelent input and drove me to get a more general and elegant result.
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A 1.0
weeks		 1.7
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The submission process has very clear requirements.
The recommendations of the Key Reader and reviewers led to the manuscript improvement.
European Journal of International Relations 4.3
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Motivation: I think the editors overstated the extent of revisions that would have been required from the one reviewer that suggested revisions to clarify theoretical concepts employed. Second reviewer had no revisions suggested. Given these reviews, an outright rejection rather than R&R seemed severe.
Engineering Geology 6.5
weeks		 8.5
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Journal of Political Philosophy n/a n/a 5.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Moral Philosophy n/a n/a 7.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Communication Research 17.4
weeks		 39.1
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I had a great experience with Communication Research with Dr. Roloff as my editor. The manuscript benefited greatly from the editor's and reviewers' comments. The only issue is the backlog of manuscripts waiting to be published.
Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology 3.1
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Review was professionally handled
Journal of Information Science 7.0
weeks		 11.3
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Information Processing and Management 43.4
weeks		 43.4
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Drawn back
Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The review was done very unrpfessionaly and some arguments used to reject the paper were clearly wrong. I had the feeling that the refee did not bother tor ead the paper carefully at al.
Geofizika 21.7
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Apart from slow review process, I was quite happy witht the outcome, especially as the topics of the paper is mutidisciplinary and this was the first article in this filed in Geofizika, as far as I know.
Medical and Veterinary Entomology 4.3
weeks		 5.8
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Acta Geophysica 6.5
weeks		 6.5
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Mathematische Annalen 39.1
weeks		 39.1
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Positive experience in every respect:
- completely acceptable duration of the refereeing process for a journal of this quality (a little less than 9 months)
- Mathematische Annalen tries to keep their authors informed: we received an acknowledgement of receipt on the day of submission, we were informed immediately after the referee report was received, and just a few days later we were told about the final acceptance.
Classical and Quantum Gravity 8.7
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Drawn back
Motivation: One of the two reports recommended acceptance, the other (by the same negative referee of the first round) rejection. We had also explained to the editor at painstaking length that the requested changes were out of the focus of the paper. The editor decided not only to reject, but (on the grounds that "both" reports were negative!!!) said that, since it would be impossible to revise this paper without writing it anew (!!!) any resubmission would be treated as new. Mind that this paper was invited and recommended by one of the CQG editors, still the editor in charged completely ignored both the inviting editor's recommendation and the positive report. Totally unprofessional behaviour; that editor felt free to bully and make arbitrary decisions protected by his anonymity. I'll never submit again to this journal.
Journal of Mathematical Physics n/a n/a 121.6
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Mathematical Physics n/a n/a 3.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Linguistic Inquiry 30.4
weeks		 43.4
weeks		 n/a 3 2
(moderate)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected