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 Anxiety Disorders 9.4
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor answered very fast (on Sundays!) after the first submission. Reviewers' comments were helpful and the revised article was accepted within 3 days (at Christmas time, on Dec 25th!). I would recommend this journal.
Sociology 30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Demography 17.9
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor apparently "lost sight" of the manuscript. We asked about its status after 5 months, at which point he told us he had given up on finding a second reviewer but would be making a last effort towards this aim. Two months later, we received referee reports advising rejection. The first report focus on the organization of the paper sums up to saying "this is not the way we do it in behavioral sciences" and the second sums up to saying "I do not understand what is a mixed logit model". Both reviewers were dogmatic in their rejection, one saying that the question we dealt with was not the traditional way to look at the specific phenomenon we investigated, the other suggesting he did not trust our "sophisticated econometrics".
Language Sciences 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Health Policy 7.7
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23.0
weeks
38.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took very long - almost a year passed between submission and rejection. The critics which lead to rejection were merely mentioned in the first review round, and the efforts put into revising the paper seemed not be taken into account for the final decision. Therefore, the review process and outcome were quite frustrating. The paper was accepted in a journal with similar quality with minor revisions afterwards.
European Journal of Health Economics 23.9
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Voluntas 22.1
weeks
31.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The entire review process went pretty fast. The reviewer comments were quite positive, and it was not too difficult to revise and resubmit the manuscript.
Evolutionary Psychology 8.6
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Evolutionary Psychology 8.7
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Lingua 14.4
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 52.7
weeks
52.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It took so long...
Journal of the International Phonetic Association 14.0
weeks
27.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Linguistics 34.0
weeks
42.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18.1
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I found it unfair that when two reviewers recommend acceptance and one reviewer had a "mixed feeling", the journal decided to reject the paper outright. I was not given a chance to address the concern raised by the third reviewer.
Language Sciences 17.3
weeks
17.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Lingua 17.3
weeks
17.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Two reviewers were extremely positive. One reviewer raised one major concern, but the editor was quite explicit about how to address that question. Right after we followed that suggestion, the paper was accepted.
Linguistic Inquiry 8.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Motivation: One reviewer rejected the paper because we did not cite a paper that is written in Japanese.
Linguistic Review Drawn back before first editorial decision after 22 days Drawn back
Motivation: The situation was unfortunate but understandable. I wished that the editor had informed us earlier about the situation so that we did not have to waste three weeks.
Language Sciences 9.9
weeks
18.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Language and Linguistics Compass 6.6
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The associate editor handled the submission really well. It was slightly frustrating that the editor-in-chief took their time (about two-months) to put a final stamp on the paper, after the associate editor issued acceptance.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 37.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: PNAS gave the blanket "this study lacks broad appeal" rejection notice. Tremendously annoying to wait for five weeks and then hear that!
Science n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reasonably fast, though it's a bit tannoying to have to wait for two weeks for what is essentially a desk rejection.
Studies in Language 50.3
weeks
51.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: I got the two reviews in July 2014; both suggested "accept with minor revisions". Then after a full 8 months of waiting, I unexpectedly got an associate editor report with the verdict of "revise and resubmit". This AE had obviously not seen I had already substantially revised the paper. Fortunately it so happened that my revisions addressed virtually all comments, but in all it was one of the weirdest procedures I've seen yet.
Language 21.1
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Language is known to be slow so 21 weeks is reasonable (so I'm told). I feel like the associate editor was way harsher than the reviewers, which were both critical but also constructive. An editor less sceptical about the line of research pursued would have recommended revise and resubmit based on these reviews. Still, the overall quality of the reviews was good, and overall the experience was helpful.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12.3
weeks
27.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I was very impressed by the short turnaround time for the first round of reviews, which seemed rigorous and attentive. I also received very detailed and helpful comments from the editor. The only delay came after submitting the first revised version; I emailed the editor after about 10 weeks, and received an acceptance a week thereafter, asking for some further very minor revisions.
The other major delay was in the time between acceptance and print. The paper was accepted in December 2013, and will not appear in a volume until May 2015 (17 months later).
Overall, it was a positive experience.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 22.4
weeks
22.4
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 19.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Bipolar Disorders 17.4
weeks
82.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent revisions, but too much time passed from the first submission to the final acceptance of the manuscript.
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry 7.7
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Usefull reviews and a quick revision process.
Zeitschrift für Orient-Archaeologie 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The comments of the first reviews took a few months. They included little of use. The editing of our article was excellent und asiduous.
IET Image Processing 30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Multimedia Tools and Applications 20.9
weeks
34.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Pervasive and Mobile Computing 21.6
weeks
27.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Multimedia Tools and Applications 8.1
weeks
15.6
weeks
n/a 6 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 20.4
weeks
29.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very slow, particularly for a journal that advertises a "fast publication schedule". I had to contact the editorial office on multiple occasions and was asked to provide additional suggestions for potential reviewers. Furthermore, it is clear that acceptance was very unlikely from the outset, as the editor ultimately rejected the basis of the study.
Cultural Sociology 17.4
weeks
19.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I was disappointed with the reviewers' comments. They liked the paper, but were not able/willing to give fundamental critique or suggestions which could improve the manuscript.

Scientometrics 3.0
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Generally very good handling of the manuscript; first review report very good and instructive. Duration of second review round surprisingly long (10 weeks) given that the editor's decision after the first review round was "accept condition upon minor revisions".
Journal of Marriage and Family 10.4
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Received 3 very helpful reviews in the first round, after major revisions finally accepted without further ado. Overall process was very fast and the editor was very professional. One of the best review experiences yet.