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 Business and Psychology 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor explained their decision in detail. The feedback was constructive and focused on both strengths and weaknesses. The comments by the editor and the reviewers contained specific advice on how I could proceed with the manuscript, including references.
Organization Studies 18.0
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Journal of Business Ethics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The reason that the manuscript does not fit the journal made no sense to me, especially because it had been under review at two similar journals.
Business and Society 11.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The feedback was polite. The editor provided suggestions on where to send the manuscript. The single review consisted of two paragraphs.
Business Ethics Quarterly 21.0
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Peptides 3.0
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Regulatory Peptides 1.7
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
British Journal of Industrial Relations n/a n/a 0.1
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: very quick immediate rejection, so no time lost
Strategic Management Journal n/a n/a 44.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No reasons for desk reject except for "fit"; it took the editor more than 30 days to come to that decision
Journal of Insect Conservation 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
American Naturalist n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 10.0
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Health Policy Drawn back before first editorial decision after 167 days Drawn back
Motivation: After 5 1/2 months in submission the paper had not even been sent to reviewers. On contacting them the publishers said there was a considerable backlog following 'editorial restructuring' and that they couldn't predict a review time. Messages sent to the editorial team received no reply at all... As I wanted my research reported this year I withdrew the paper and resubmitted to another journal. Health Policy is a quality journal, but it's clearly having difficulties at the present time and I would think twice about submitting any time critical papers to them
Evolution 6.0
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Environmental and Resource Economics 39.1
weeks
73.8
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Global Environmental Change 34.7
weeks
36.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Energy Policy 30.4
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews and handling were fast and efficient, but referee reports of pretty poor quality.
Behavioral and Brain Functions 6.0
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast handling by the editors and reviewers. The reviewers were familiar wtih the topic.
Biological Psychiatry n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Contemporary Religion n/a n/a 76.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Journal follows somewhat unorthodox and quite extensive style guidelines, which have to be adhered to before a manuscript is considered.
Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Experience was very pleasing. Even though the initial requirements (all figures in *.eps format etc) were painful the speed of the review process and handling by the editor were excellent.
World Development 34.7
weeks
40.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very long and the reviewers were from a competing field, with little expertise in this specific field (as they acknowledged in the reviews). They came with a negative verdict in the second review round (based on vague arguments), which was uncritically taken over by the editor. After I complained about this, the editor told me that he would discuss the issue with somebody from the editorial team and that this could take another three weeks to a month. It then took 15 weeks and required two reminders from my side before I finally got an answer. He let me know that they would allow me to submit the paper again and start a completely new review process. However, after this experience (which meant a time loss of over a year), I did not want to run the risk of more delay and published in another journal.
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected without in-depth review process, the journal did nor provide any scientific reasons for the rejection. The editors have felt that the scope of the manuscript would fit to a more applied and specilized journal.
Nature Communications 6.5
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fair and had high scientific quality, I would recommend this journal to others. However I have to say that the online manuscript tracking system is a bit clumsy and doesn't provide much information.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering 10.0
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was prompt and correct and based on the comments the manuscripts was greatly improved.
Neuroinformatics n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript should have been sent out for external assessment. Obviously the editor believes the readership will not benefit from the contents. I have experienced this before and the article is now a "highly cited" (405 citations to date) in the area.
Journal of Economic Psychology n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular Biotechnology 3.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: My manuscript was handled very well by this journal. The review process was quite quick and the reviewer's comments were of a high standard, and fair. After addressing the comments the quality of my manuscript was greatly improved. I would recommend this journal without reservation.
Assessment n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nursing Inquiry n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Advanced Nursing n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Nursing Review n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Social Indicators Research 15.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Europe-Asia Studies 34.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editors obviously did not read the paper but only relied upon external reports. One report completely ignored what I said the paper was about and based his comments on his own participation in conferences whose proceedings were not published. I said the paper was about commercialized agriculture, the reviewer wanted to talk about food subsistence. That said, the report said the paper was well-written and scholarly. The main shortcoming was that I did not take account of his own work and point of view (which was unpublished). The second reviewer's comments were completely out of touch with reality and made no sense. I previously had published a dozen or so articles in this journal since 1992, but the editor and perhaps editorial board have changed recently.
Deviant Behavior 12.0
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 12.0
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Genetics Selection Evolution 7.1
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This is a good journal. The Editor and reviews are very good.
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected