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 |
| Environmental Microbiology Reports | 13.0 weeks |
21.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 0 (very bad) |
0 (very bad) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Editor was slow, arrogant and not very competent for our theme of research. | |||||||
| Acta Mathematica Scientia | 65.1 weeks |
65.1 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 0 (very bad) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: Note that, for this comment (that is my work is already done) Reviewer takes more than 15 months. Also, when I submitted, my results was new, but due to slow processing and reviewing after 6-7 months of my submission similar results to those I submitted was published by another journal ( more reputed than this journal). |
|||||||
| American Journal of Therapeutics | Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks | Accepted (im.) | |||||
| International Gambling Studies | 6.0 weeks |
9.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Journal of Applied Social Psychology | 43.4 weeks |
43.4 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 2 (moderate) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: The journal took far too long to review the manuscript. I wrote after 6 months to enquire about the delay and was told that two reviewers had agreed to review the manuscript, that one review had been submitted and the other would be submitted imminently. Four months later (i.e. 10 months post-submission), I received a rejection letter on the basis of only one review. | |||||||
| Microbial Biotechnology | 8.6 weeks |
9.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Water Alternatives | 21.7 weeks |
22.8 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Journal of Common Market Studies | 9.6 weeks |
15.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: I feel this a generally positive experience. The turnaround time was decent. There were one or two comments that I felt stemmed from not having read the MS carefully, but overall the comments were well-observed and helped me to improve the manuscript a great deal. They were quite strict on the word count. | |||||||
| Governance | 1.1 weeks |
1.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: Very prompt review process. | |||||||
| International Migration Review | 39.1 weeks |
39.1 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: In terms of argumentation provided the journal scored a good mark. The conclusion made, namely to not ask for a revision for new submission but reject the manuscript, stood at certain odds with the substantive, mostly constructive and valuable dialogue entered with the manuscript by the reviewers, with various pointers for direct improvement. Finally the time, at 9 months, taken for the review may be considered rather lengthy, even if recognition is given to the difficulties many journals face with securing relevant reviewers. Hence an overall mark of 6. | |||||||
| Industrial and Labor Relations Review | 15.0 weeks |
35.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: very rigoreous review process, but long. | |||||||
| Work, Employment and Society | 13.0 weeks |
28.2 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Social Science and Medicine | n/a | n/a | 1.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| International Journal of Epidemiology | 8.7 weeks |
10.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
@scirev