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
Journal of Public Economic Theory 34.7
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: the editor and the associate editor seemed to have difficulty communicating, with each other and with me
Journal of Public Economics 36.9
weeks
71.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: it was a lengthy process, but the evaluation was fair, informed and useful
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Happiness Studies 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Science and Technology Studies 16.3
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I had three reviewers with completely different comments. Therefore, it took me a while to make the changes. But after re-submission, my paper was not send to the reviewers again and it was rejected instead. The editor gave me three reasons for it, i.e. three points that had been requested by the reviewers. But I did not agree at all, because I changed these three points. My impression was that my paper was read very superficially. I complained to the editor and asked whether my paper could be reread. But the editor answered that the decision was final. I found the review process very unfair because the superficial reading was the reason why my paper was not sent to the reviewers again. I would have preferred that the reviewers had judged themselves.
Current Psychology 1.6
weeks
1.6
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 4
(very good)
Accepted
European Sociological Review 19.5
weeks
49.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
AIDS and Behavior 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal sat on my paper for four months before it was rejected. Several times I attempted to contact the editor for an update without success. Finally, after over two months of silence, I received an email saying the following:

"I'm sorry. I'm a bit behind on decisions. I hope to get caught up soon. Thanks for letting me know.
Seth"

This email was unhelpful. The journal then sat on my paper for another two months before rejecting it for reasons I do not understand, given the reviewers seemed to enjoy it and their critical feedback was mild.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17.4
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor clearly wants a speedy process, and thanked the authors for resubmitting quickly.
Technovation 8.7
weeks
8.8
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Addiction n/a n/a 30.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Research Evaluation 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Process went smooth, reviews of high quality. Overall process from submission to acceptance took 7 months.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: It was an excellent review process. I highly recommend this journal for researchers in the financial services marketing.
Optics Express n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 19.5
weeks
19.5
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It took one month just for the paper to be assigned to an editor. Then, three and a half months later, we receive the rejection notice with just two very scant reviews that evidenced very little effort from the reviewers, some of whose comments actually contradict factual data in the paper. Either we presented the paper very badly or they did not bother reading it thoroughly.
Endocrine 4.0
weeks
14.8
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was accepted after discussing with the editor regarding the final reviewer request and why we could not address this. This is an excellent journal with excellent editors who actively review the reviewers opinions and weigh them against that of authors and content of the manuscript before a final decision is made. A very sound (and fast) review process that is fair and rigorous and would recommend this as the endocrine journal of choice to researchers.
Statistics in Medicine 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer did not make any attempt to review the scientific argument in the paper but simply went on to find fault with the terminology used and express his/her opinion about how it was not possible to understand the paper. The review was simply about authors being unclear about the underlying models, being confused about key statistical concepts followed by a tutorial on the reviewers thoughts about the terminology used in statistics. There was no attempt made to objectively assess the proposal in the paper or to demonstrate if it works or not. There was no consideration at all of our methods or any specific pointer to the validity of our findings - two pages filled with non-specific opinions that could very well address any paper at Statistics in Medicine. The editors simply served as gate keepers for the reviewers. I would avoid this journal if you are presenting new methods and are not a famous personality.
Research on Social Work Practice 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Review was fast and reviewer comments were reasonable. I would submit manuscripts to this journal again.
Scientific World Journal n/a n/a 152.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After more than 5 months, we received the following e-mail:

"I am writing with reference to manuscript XXXXXX titled "Automatic ...." Please allow me to clarify that your manuscript was sent to a large number of editors and, up till now, we have not received any evaluation reports on it, which may indicate a lack of interest from the editors' side regarding the topic
of your manuscript. Thus, unfortunately, we will not be able to consider your manuscript in the journal."

So, after 22 weeks, they decided that the manuscript was not of interest for this journal. Serious journals make this kind of decisions in 1-2 weeks.
Personality and Individual Differences 10.5
weeks
13.5
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Diabetologia 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The Associate editor said "whilst there is some interest in how this work has been done, the three reviewers had varying views but on overall the feeling was 1. the work would not change the overall view of this area given recent FDA pronoucements and 2. that the statistical aspects were potential problematic in places. Overall, taking all things into consideration, the paper would not be currently competitive against other papers submitted to the journal."

We believe that when reviewers flag methodological concerns it is a concerning if editors make the inference that there are potentially problematic statistical issues without feedback from the authors - reviewers may not necessarily be as well versed in the methods as the authors and thus this situation reflects editors simply acting as gate keepers.
Przeglad Elektrotechniczny 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Geochemical Exploration 15.2
weeks
15.2
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 11.1
weeks
20.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
European Union Politics 11.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ecological Modelling 8.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Ecological Modelling was the fastest journal from submission to publication that I've ever experienced.
Industrial Relations n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Quarterly Journal of Economics 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 3.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Materials Chemistry and Physics 34.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Organization Science n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Waste Management 13.0
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reasonable speed for answer, good quality reviews that added value to the paper.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 6.0
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer comments were thorough, to the point and useful. Communication was polite and clear.
Europe-Asia Studies Drawn back before first editorial decision after 668 days Drawn back
Motivation: After I submitted the paper I sent 6 e-mails (one every 4 months) to understand what is going on. The replies to my e-mails provided contradictory information: one said that a decision will be reached soon and three months later the e-mail said that they are still waiting for a reviewer,
World Journal of Gastroenterology 5.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The whole process took a lot of effort and was very unclear. At first the manuscript appeared to be accepted, however after we chose not to pay for an English language check by a firm suggested by them and had it done by our own universities language center, the manuscript was rejected. The reason why the manuscript was rejected remained unclear. We attempted a complaint with someone listed as chief editor but never got a response.
European Political Science 13.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast turnaround, there were sompe problems with the online submission system.
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews were constructive and polite, however somewhat general and motivated from the reviewers personal view on the topic.
American Journal of Gastroenterology 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were thorough, polite, and useful.
PLoS Medicine n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: PLOS Medicine has a special "presubmission inquiry" process. You can send in your abstract to this process and within 3 days you will receive an advise on whether to send in your whole manuscript for a longer review process or whether to send it to a different journal.
American Journal of Gastroenterology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Communication was swift and polite.