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
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 publicaciĆ³n 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.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 17.4
weeks
20.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review was thorough and comprehensive, well worth the time I had to wait for it.
Ethnicities 13.0
weeks
19.5
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ecological Modelling 15.2
weeks
19.5
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I think the reviewers did a very good job at reviewing the paper, which has improved substantially before publication. The reviewing process took a relatively long time, but it was overall satisfactory.
Journal of African Economies 17.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 12.0
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This was a paper based on an invited oral presentation. One review was brief and identified salient points that the reviewer valued. The second review was longer, asked some good questions and made some helpful suggestions that I could easily respond to with minor revisions.
Mind 47.7
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
International Journal of Hospitality Management 8.7
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Annals of Tourism Research 13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Planta 4.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Cultural Dynamics 3.0
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted
Policy Sciences 10.8
weeks
15.2
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Policy Sciences was an excellent journal to work with. At least in our case, reviewers selected demonstrated knowledge of the specific research domain, and raised good questions. The editor is also very professional and timely in responses.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Of the two reviews, one recommended minor revisions and one recommended rejection. Both provided evidence for their recommendations, but the referee recommending rejections actually provided inaccurate evidence (some claims about the data that we could have corrected in an authors' response had we been given the opportunity). The editor rejected the manuscript. I do not think it is professional to reject a manuscript based on one reviewer's recommendation.
Voluntas 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The single reviewer who advised rejection wrote about the "interesting" aspects of our ms, but then offered three minor objections (one of which was that a table was oddly placed!). The concerns could have been addressed in a revision so I did not feel the objections warranted rejection. I think we deserved a chance to respond to the reviewer's suggestions. When I asked the Editor for additional feedback I received no reply. Rejecting a ms on the basis of one poor quality referee report is unprofessional.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10.8
weeks
47.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I have received useful reviews in a reasonable time for the first two rounds of submission. However, the third round of revisions took almost six months.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8.7
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I have received decently useful comments in a reasonable time. Fast online publication before print. However, it may takes up to a year or more before the final version is published.
Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor works hard to get reviewers comply with the deadlines. In general, I believe he manages well exchanges between authors and reviewers.
International Journal of Business and Social Science 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews contained no comments at all. They were only yes/no evaluations based on six criteria. Very disappointing... I even suspect - although I have no proof of this - that the review process is bogus. Besides, I had asked the editor to wait before publishing the article because I was waiting fo an official authorization from my organization, but he did not.
Evaluation Review 19.5
weeks
22.5
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very helpful Editor.
Journal of European Public Policy 4.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I have received very useful reviews in a short time. The online prepublication version of my article was published in less than 6 months following initial submission. Moreover, the Editors are open to suggestions and do not follow 'slavishly' reviewers' comments.
Cognition and Emotion 60.8
weeks
103.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back