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
International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 7.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Energy Policy 3.4
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Global Environmental Change 7.0
weeks
9.5
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: GEC kept me well-informed throughout the review process - I was constantly getting emails about the status of the manuscript and I felt that the review process was timely. Two minor points to add however. First, I would have liked to have known at the outset whether or not it had been sent out for review as there's quite a long wait at that point where you're not sure whether it's been immediately rejected or not. Second, I also tried and failed to get advance warning of final publication so that my institute could do some PR, but despite emails requesting notice, that didn't happen - I just got an email saying it was published already.
GeoInformatica n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript rejected without explanation despite clear relevance. Very disappointed with the process. Contacted the editors politely and got a disdainful response.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 13.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science 26.0
weeks
26.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was relatively fast and thorough. Needed to convert the (accepted) paper from LaTeX to Word, but otherwise went well.
GeoInformatica n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A paper that was clearly fit for the journal was rejected without review and with a generic email stating that it might be because of 3 reasons, none of which apply to the paper.
Explorations in Economic History n/a n/a 37.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Review of Income and Wealth 13.9
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: One of the two reviewers seemed not to have correctly understood the paper, maybe dedicated too little time, and the critiques in the report were therefore not very useful.
Journal of Agricultural Science 10.8
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was handled rather quick. Only the final decision (after minor revisions) took a while. The comments given were usefull and relevant. The journal stresses the importance of correct use of English language and formatting (they even requested to consult external editing service), although the document with guidelines is not very complete and written in a clear way.
Journal of Cleaner Production 3.3
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Dr. Huising and Dr. Klemes do great job in taking the manuscript, handling and finding reviewers and maintaining a fast communication in all aspects. JCP was the most efficient journal that I have worked with so far. I can assure you that you will receive iniitial feedback in less than 2-2.5 months
Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice 78.1
weeks
156.2
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: It took very very long (16~18 months) for the first review for two of my papers in this journal (both accepted with little delay after first review). However, another paper took only 5 months from first submission to publication. So it was a mixed bag.
Ad Hoc Networks 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review and reviewers were really into the topic with very helpful comments.
IEEE Sensors Journal 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Review process was fast. Reviewers did not understand the paper very well, it might be because it was a bit offtopic. Also, both reviewers contradicted each other.
Information Sciences 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewing process was fast (it was an special issue). The reviews were of an average quality but not disapointing. Useful for the paper improvement.
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 6.4
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewing process is fast but the reviews look like the reviewers were not really into the topic of the paper. Most of the comments of the reviewers were meaningless.
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Slow review process. Also, although the reviews were OK, they did not understand the contributions of the paper. It is hard to introduce a new point of view in an already saturated area.
IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 10.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process is fast but this journal looks for non very-technical contributions adn they complained that my paper was not technical enough.
Stata Journal 15.7
weeks
24.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Long time for first review. Single reviewer demanded essential parts to be taken out and wrong statements to be taken in (besides other valuable points). Demands were formulated clearly and unambiguous.
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 7.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick handling and fair reviews with constructive critique that lead to important improvements in the manuscript.
International Journal of Educational Development 65.1
weeks
80.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I had a great experience with the journal. The peer reviewers were helpful and fair, and the editorial team was great to work with.
New England Journal of Medicine n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: NEJM is obviously a great and reputable journal, so there isn't much to say about quality. Equally impressive is their very quick screening of manuscripts to determine if they are a potential fit for the journal. My submission was rejected for fit issues within 3 days, which I greatly appreciated as it saved me an enormous amount of time.
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Although my paper was rejected and I was obviously disappointed, I felt as though I received a very fair peer review and compliment the quality of the editorial team and processes. I highly recommend this journal.
Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional editorial team and very easy to work with. The peer reviewers were quite helpful. This journal does a great job.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Great journal and editorial team. They were very easy to work with and very helpful for authors providing submissions.
Ecological Economics 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Response - a rejection - was received in exactly 3 months later.
Body Image 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This journal is excellent when it comes to timely, careful reviews. I have found the associate editors to be very helpful and easy to deal with. I recommend this journal!
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: AEHE generally publishes some very good papers, which motivated me to consider publishing there. I was quite dismayed with the quality of the peer reviewers, though. One of the reviewers claimed to be subject matter experts in the area, but his/her comments indicated otherwise. When I presented my evidence to the editor that one of the reviewers was seemingly unqualified, the editor forwarded my comments to the anonymous reviewer who ultimately admitted that s/he didn't know anything about the subject or methodology. The editor offered to send the paper to another reviewer, but many months of valuable time had already been wasted so I opted to pull the manuscript and submit it to a journal that had a Call for Papers and promised a very quick decision.
Academic Medicine 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: I had a good experience with Academic Medicine. I felt I was given a fair peer review and have no qualms with any of that. However, our article was ultimately rejected because the topic had previously been published in Academic Medicine. This despite having excellent reviews from the reviewers. With good editorial screening, this verdict could have been reached within days and not wasted valuable reviewer time, or that of the authors.
Medical Education 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: Medical Education is a highly regarded journal based in the UK. While the journal surely receives a high volume of submissions, reviews are incredibly questionable. I have submitted six articles to this journal in the past and each time I felt as though my work was reviewed by persons with minimal knowledge of the subject area. Three of the six papers I submitted were accepted for publication, but the incredibly poor quality peer-reviews and apparent editorial "napping" made the process so miserable that I simply withdrew two of the three accepted papers and never followed up. I have never had this type of strange, and negative, experience with any other journal.
Social Networks 21.7
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Sports Sciences n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The data used in the study was public domain data from the internet. However, the journal has a rigid policy of requiring all papers to be considered by an ethics committee. This was clearly unnecessary in this case, and something I have never before encountered.
Gerontologist n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 8.0
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews we received were very good. I was slightly disappointed that the article was sent out a second time as it did not require any major revisions (such as additional data collection). I felt the editor could have made an assessment from our revision based on the first set of reviews. The second review process added 67 days, making the total time under review about 6 months.
Journal of Vegetation Science 9.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The handling editor did not do a good job. After the first review round we were informed that basically only layout/formatting/style had to be changed. However, after the second round the manuscript was rejected because the editor had now realized that the study had, according to her/him, major flaws.
Higher Education Policy 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Motivation: Swift and professional handling, but reviewer's reports were quite confusing and the editor's decision to request a major revision of the paper was not considered an option. Outcome: submission to another journal.
Work, Employment and Society 4.3
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was thorough and critical but constructive. It very much helped us to improve the manuscript. The handling editor was very clear about how to make the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal and fast in making decisions. Overall, a very positive experience.
Work and Occupations n/a n/a 0.5
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Mind 47.7
weeks
141.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted