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
Global Change Biology 8.0
weeks		 8.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Climate Research 7.6
weeks		 7.9
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very quick but thorough review process
Many reviewers (5 in our case), who's comments can improve the paper
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology n/a n/a 5.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biodegradation 21.7
weeks		 28.2
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Accepted
Motivation: too much time for review. reviews only wanted reorganisation and push some data to supplementary material
Psychopharmacology Immediately accepted after 0.9 weeks Accepted (im.)
Psychopharmacology 7.3
weeks		 7.3
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The review provided was not from a specialist in the field and contained suggestions that were not pertinent to the research. The rejection was contested and the paper was accepted by editorial decision.
Protoplasma 6.0
weeks		 9.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Schizophrenia Research n/a n/a 20.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Biological Chemistry 2.7
weeks		 2.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Turn around time with reviewers was very quick, queries on initial submission were answered on the same day. Automated submission system is very efficient.
Biochemical Journal 6.6
weeks		 7.3
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The Biochemical Journal handles the submission/review/revision and decision process extremely professionally. Email confirmations from the automated submission system are clear and interaction with the staff generates quick and efficient replies.
Functional Plant Biology 4.0
weeks		 7.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Acting as an editor myself I know that it becomes more and more complicated to identify colleagues willing to act as a reviewer and to respond in time. Therefore editors tend to rely on "fast responding colleagues". These have developed some routine in handling manuscripts, but they are not necessarily outstanding experts in the field of research an individual manuscript is dealing with. Therefore it may be quite complicated to have a manuscript accepted if its topic is not trendy or if it is trans-disciplinary rather than focusing on a specific aspect.
South African Journal of Science 5.0
weeks		 11.5
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Journal of Economic Growth 17.4
weeks		 46.8
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Molecular Ecology Resources 10.0
weeks		 12.1
weeks		 n/a 4 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Excellent communication. Good reviews. Great editorial work
Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 8.7
weeks		 9.1
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was very fast and very efficient. The Editor himself also suggested small changes that improved the manuscript. I felt that my manuscript received all the necessary attention, and the proofs had almost no errors. I am very happy with the whole procedure.
Estuaries and Coasts 26.0
weeks		 32.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers were very helpful, clearly well chosen for style of paper.
Timely production, on par with other journals and much better than some. Delay between acceptance and production was to a large extend due to the time that I took to make corrections.
Journal of Applied Statistics 8.7
weeks		 30.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 0.7
weeks		 13.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
ISME Journal 11.4
weeks		 12.4
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: I wasn't satisfied with proofing process after my manuscript was accepted.
The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)		 Drawn back
Motivation: After 3 months I ma still waiting, editor says that the reviewer are busy and they will get to my paper soon, that was 3 weeks ago, now entering 4 month sinc esubmission. Prior experience, took 9 months for reviews abd finally was rejected, only to be publish withni 6 weeks in another journal.
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 3.0
weeks		 6.0
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers and Editor are really professionnal and respectfull. I submitted many times to this journal and I was always treated professionnally
Cognitive Systems Research 8.7
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 4 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: My experience with Cognitive Systems Research Journal was very positive. The review process improved the article and I was very pleased with the final result.
Language Learning 10.8
weeks		 10.8
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient process throughout. Editor offered many detailed suggestions for improving the final draft.
Sociological Quarterly 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 4 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Good journal, fast turn around. Very satisfied.
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 4.6
weeks		 6.6
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Acta Sociologica 26.0
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Current Sociology 8.7
weeks		 10.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Review was expedient, transparent, and the reviews where well founded.
Scandinavian Political Studies 17.4
weeks		 26.6
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Consciousness and Cognition 4.3
weeks		 5.1
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Biology of Sport 19.5
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 1 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Accepted
Motivation: A review report was sent me after several months from submission following to solicitation. Minor revision was requested. The editorial decision came after 1.5 mo. following to solicitation.
Journal of International Development Immediately accepted after 26.0 weeks Accepted (im.)
EXCLI Journal 8.7
weeks		 9.0
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Waste Management 13.0
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Water Resources Research n/a n/a 1.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C 8.6
weeks		 10.0
weeks		 n/a 1 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The process of submission was not through the on-line system; instead, it was in-person conversation with the editor himself. Very good speed and quality.
Water Policy 60.8
weeks		 60.8
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Progress in Electromagnetics Research 4.3
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and fair. It improved the clarity of the final manuscript and the whole publicación process was done in only 6 months.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 4.3
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Motivation: Referee report was unnecessarily offensive. Editors performed adequately.
Science n/a n/a 9.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 16.1
weeks		 26.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very extense but constructive comments for first revision. I would have liked better to receive a faster answer for first revision, but after that the process was quite agile.