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
Mindfulness 7.3
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
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
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.)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.