All reviews - Page 1

All reviews received by SciRev

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome
Journal of Youth Studies	24.7 weeks	24.7 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Youth and Society	9.3 weeks	9.3 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Rejected
International Journal of Lifelong Education	11.0 weeks	24.1 weeks	n/a	3	2 (moderate)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Gender and Education	31.3 weeks	54.9 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	2 (moderate)	Rejected
Work, Employment and Society	22.0 weeks	46.7 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Sociology	20.0 weeks	25.7 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Sociology	Motivation: The editorial process was a bit slow but apart from this the process went smoothly. The reviewers comments were very helpful and I would submit to this journal any time again.
Science and Public Policy	7.6 weeks	9.9 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Science and Public Policy	Motivation: Very good reviewers, speedy process, excellent handling. Reviewers comments really helped turning a manuscript with great potential but not sufficiently developed argument into one with coherent and clear message. Editor's work facilitated this.
Gerontologist	3.4 weeks	6.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Gerontologist	Motivation: The comments were quite short but to the point and they helped improve the quality of the paper.
De Economist	1.0 weeks	2.0 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
De Economist	Motivation: This paper was part of a special issue, so it explains part of the speed with which is was handled.
Environmental Science and Policy	9.0 weeks	9.0 weeks	n/a	1	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Rejected
Marine Geodesy	6.5 weeks	21.7 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Marine Geodesy	Motivation: Overall good quality of reviews. Reasonable and correct criticism and some positive remarks as well, so quite balanced. No major changes were required content wise. Only the editing system was a bit of a mess. It did not accept my pdfs, I had to convert them to an older PDF version (v1.5) Submitting files was not so easy, because the system is locked when it thinks it has successfully received your files, even if that is not the case. As a result I had to sent a lot of emails with files to an assistant editor. Communication was good though, prompt and kind replies to my emails.
British Journal of Cancer	n/a	n/a	15.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE	14.6 weeks	16.4 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
PLoS ONE	Motivation: The only problem was the delayed iterative process of selecting an academic editor for the MS. After that I was really very satisfied with both the quality and speed of the review process.
Alexandria: The Journal of National and International Library and Information Issues	8.0 weeks	8.0 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
	Motivation: The review process and the editor's comments were helpful. Because the journal is UK based and my articles is very US government based, some things I took for granted needed further clarification. The editor (Monica Blake) responded to e-mails in a timely way and was very helpful.
Analysis	n/a	n/a	4.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Cancer Research	4.6 weeks	4.6 weeks	n/a	3	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
Cancer Research	Motivation: There was one review very poorly written and most comments could not be understood. It seems like a review written by a postdoc instead of a principal investigator who should be (or was) asked to do perform review. Senior Editor showed no interest for scientific discussion.
Molecular Pharmaceutics	n/a	n/a	7.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Molecular Pharmaceutics	Motivation: Although the paper I submitted was actually a direct response to a polemic attacking our own work quite personally, and published in the same journal, the response read "...your submission would be better suited for a more specialized journal". In other words they sought to block our side of the debate. After I appealed and pointed out that one could not BE more specialised than the journal that had published the original paper, I got "your paper in it's (sic) present form is a review of a review and is not acceptable as a scholarly review or perspective". In other words they do not want to hear criticisms of papers they have published if it does not suit their own views. I am utterly disgusted by them, and I would advise anyone to avoid submitting anything serious there. Ever.
Ethnic and Racial Studies	14.0 weeks	14.0 weeks	n/a	2	2 (moderate)	3 (good)	Rejected
Ethnic and Racial Studies	Motivation: There were two reviewers with contradictory recommendations and different quality of comments. The weaker reviewer recommended rejection and the editor rejected the manuscript based on rather poor arguments. The stronger reviewer recommended revise and resubmit and all the points could have been addressed without problems.
Acta Politica	27.0 weeks	27.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	2 (moderate)	Rejected
Acta Politica	Motivation: It takes a lot to get the reviews.
Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe	18.0 weeks	22.0 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe	Motivation: The editor took a quick decision after submitting the revised version. The communication with the staff was efficient.
Party Politics	11.0 weeks	37.0 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Party Politics	Motivation: After revising and resubmitting the manuscript it took the editors half a year to get back to me with a decision. Apart from that, the quality of reviews was high and the overall process was good.
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders	19.0 weeks	19.0 weeks	n/a	1	3 (good)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders	Motivation: Incredibly slow to review - after such a delay they should have sought out new reviewers.
Mindfulness	7.3 weeks	15.0 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Mindfulness	Motivation: good reviews (critical, constructive, friendly) and relatively quick handling.
Injury	11.7 weeks	11.7 weeks	n/a	1	1 (bad)	3 (good)	Rejected
Injury	Motivation: I was happy with the editorial process, but the comments I received from the reviewer were unfortunately not useful. The criticism stayed at a general level and included very little constructive feedback. For example, the reviewer indicated that there were too few references, "not all reviews on the subject are referred to", but gave no specific information on these missing pieces.
Internet and Higher Education	n/a	n/a	0.1 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Internet and Higher Education	Motivation: We were very happy that the editor informed us very quickly (the same day!) that our contribution was not fit for the journal. We also liked the argumentation of the quick reply, namely that we could submit it elsewhere without delay.
Journal of Cell Science	7.1 weeks	13.6 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
PLoS ONE	5.0 weeks	6.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Educational Researcher	n/a	n/a	15.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Journal of Common Market Studies	7.7 weeks	7.7 weeks	n/a	2	2 (moderate)	3 (good)	Rejected
Journal of Common Market Studies	Motivation: We are very satisfied about the contact with the editorial office, as well as with the speed of the process. The reviewer reports, however, were less informative, as the comments suggested that they did not read the paper in detail.
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics	n/a	n/a	140.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Carbohydrate Research	9.7 weeks	10.9 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Journal of International Development	32.4 weeks	32.4 weeks	n/a	0	n/a	0 (very bad)	Rejected
Journal of International Development	Motivation: Six months after submission, I emailed the editorial office to enquire about the status of my paper. The contact person claimed she emailed a reviewer and never heard from them. I wanted to withdraw my paper. But she encouraged me to wait because she assigned a new reviewer. After almost 2 months, I get an email saying "Further to a discussion with the editors your article has been declined for publication." No reviewer reports whatsover. So I have no idea how many reviewers reviewed the paper. I have no idea what their comments were. Absolutely horrible experience. I will never encourage anyone to submit their paper to this journal.
Social Forces	15.2 weeks	15.2 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Social Forces	Motivation: Despite my paper being rejected by the editor, the reviews were extensive, on-topic and helpful. Good review process.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health	19.1 weeks	26.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health	Motivation: The review process was smooth and relatively quick. My only frustration was that the editor made a lot of unnecessary minor edits after acceptance. Some of these altered the meaning of sentences and resulted in inaccuracies that I had to address.
British Journal of Occupational Therapy	11.6 weeks	33.4 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Accepted
British Journal of Occupational Therapy	Motivation: In the first round the editor(s) failed to send me the full text of one of the reviewers' reports. It took a number of months before the editorial team realised this, which delayed the process substantially. The time from acceptance to publication was 8 months.
Reviews in Mathematical Physics	52.1 weeks	69.4 weeks	n/a	1	4 (very good)	2 (moderate)	Accepted
Carbon	8.7 weeks	9.1 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Carbon	Motivation: It took awhile (2 months) to hear back from reviewers, but otherwise great experience.
Optics Letters	n/a	n/a	5.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Nano Letters	n/a	n/a	11.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Journal of Personnel Psychology	6.0 weeks	6.0 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	3 (good)	Rejected
Journal of Personnel Psychology	Motivation: The turnaround time was relatively short and as "advertized". The reviews were polite and constructive in tone, and focused primarily on shortcomings. While the reviewers had a few suggestions for improvement, they could have been more developmental. Some of the criticisms appeared too demanding to me.