Submit review Create journal list

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
Acta Acustica united with Acustica 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The review process was unfair. I pointed out that one reviewer was wrong concerning an alleged error. The associate editor refused to forward this clarification to the said reviewer. Moreover, he refused to answer some questions regarding arguments for rejection or revision. Instead, he suggested resubmission of a newe article after revision. But: What should be revised? I was not amused.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 8.7
weeks		 23.9
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I found the process tidy and the reviewers' comments very helpful. The overall duration of the process was too long to encourage many new submissions from my lab, however. The nearly 18-month delay between manuscript acceptance and the publication date was particularly impractical. Still, it's a good journal and I believe our manuscript was much improved through the review process.
Cold Regions Science and Technology 6.5
weeks		 7.1
weeks		 n/a 3 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Not all reviewers were familiar with an important aspect of the paper. Therefore it took quite an effort to explain them the background. However, there were also some comments, which led to an improvement of the paper. The review process was comparably fast.
Veterinary Research Communications 16.0
weeks		 21.0
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Addiction Biology n/a n/a 2.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Epidemiology n/a n/a 14.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 8.7
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very speedy and professional review process.
Tobacco Control n/a n/a 14.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Review process was relatively speedy and professional.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 8.7
weeks		 19.4
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Speedy and transparent review process, with suitably matched reviewers.
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 0.9
weeks		 0.9
weeks		 n/a 1 2
(moderate)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 4.3
weeks		 5.3
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The interactive review process facilitates an efficient discussion.
Neurology 5.0
weeks		 5.0
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: I received two reviews. The first was opinionated without supporting facts. The second was a reasonable review with objective critiques. Ultimately, no reason for the rejection was given except for the standard "not high enough priority." However, based on the available reviewer comments this could not be put in perspective.
Neurocritical Care 1.0
weeks		 2.0
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Painless submission process with reasonable and objective reviews.
Nutrition and Metabolism 6.0
weeks		 7.0
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The article submission process was very streamlined and was one of the simplest I have encountered to date. The review and final notification of acceptance were also shorter than I expected. The editorial team bent over backwards to assist with any issues I had with the electronic system.
PLoS ONE 13.0
weeks		 14.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were clearly experts, and gave a rapid but thorough review.
Automatica 39.1
weeks		 60.8
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The decision to reject on the basis of being out of scope for the journal needs to be made immediately, not after sixteen months in process.
Automatica 6.9
weeks		 6.9
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers found a subtle but serious flaw in the mathematics. The flaw was fixable, so I regret the reject/no resubmission decision, but it was handled fairly.
Planning Theory 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Great review process despite rejection. Comments very helpful in the end.
Applied Energy 11.1
weeks		 27.7
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Journal of Planning Education and Research 21.7
weeks		 47.7
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: I spent 5 months waiting for a revise and resubmit from 2 reviewers and 1 OK. I then addressed the reviewers comments in good faith for 6 months. I then waited 6 months for 2 reviewers to reject and 1 to say Ok (again). I am fine with reviewers opinions - even from those who are initially encouraging and then sharply critical, even if the latter is disagreeable. However it should be the editor's job to explain and moderate in this situation - not to simply copy paste a reviewer's comment by way of explanation. Overall: a huge waste of time. Thank goodness there are just as good journals out there, who may know how to run things properly.
Energy and Buildings 7.6
weeks		 9.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 13.0
weeks		 15.0
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: In robotics, as any other multidisciplinary science, the review process is far from being straightforward. In most situations, either on journals or relevant conferences in the field, such as IROS or ICRA, reviews may not fill our expectations. Either because they may fail to grasp the mathematical complexity associated with the proposed methodologies, or because they completely ignore the hard and time-consuming work associated with real-world experiments.

The Robotics and Autonomous Systems journal, aka. RAS, is perhaps the most well-suited journal in the field of robotics at the moment. In general, the review process is considerably faster than the alternatives (between 3 to 5 months), and the quality of the revisions is undoubtedly above the average, with always 3 or more reviewers for each report. The current editors, in particularly Prof. R. Dillmann, usually handle the decision process quite fast (around 1 week between each phase) and minor revisions are assessed without going back to the reviewers in most situations. Note that this does not mean that the review process lakes quality. In fact, it is quite the opposite and the progressive evolution of RAS impact factor over the last few years says it all.

To sum it up, if I would have to advise any roboticist on a good journal, with a considerably fast and fair review process, RAS would be the way to go. It has a broad scope within robotics field and publishes a large number of papers per year (around 100).
Computational Geosciences 19.5
weeks		 22.4
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I have applied a complicated mathematical method in a geostistical application. The reviwers was familiar with application but unfamiliar with my new approach basics. Hence I have some difficulties with them. However I should emphasize that some of their comments was usefull and help improve my paper.
Europe-Asia Studies 43.4
weeks		 43.4
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: Lengthy reviewing time.
One of the referees simply said that the manuscript did not add to the literature without no further justifications or comments. The second referee was constructive, with a long and well written report suggesting several modifications.
Precision Agriculture 43.4
weeks		 52.1
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review was fair and constructive, and special appreciation for the linguistic assistance for non native English speaking author..
Palaios 10.0
weeks		 20.9
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The assistant editor was very thorough, both scientifically and with respect to writing. The manuscript was significantly improved by interaction with this assistant editor, and further improvements were made by the chief editor.
Alcohol and Alcoholism 4.0
weeks		 5.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Everything was fine and smooth regardless of final outcome, the way is supposed to be
Computer Music Journal 30.4
weeks		 32.5
weeks		 n/a 6 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very rigorous, and handled in a very professional manner. I received some very challenging reviews, but the consequence is that the articles were greatly improved, over-broad assertions were pruned back to defensible positions, and the subject matter was completely vetted. Given that the articles constituted a long-view historical treatment of research developments of hundreds of researchers, it was very important to get everything right. The Computer Music Journal and the MIT Press were good allies in the process of obtaining the very best work from me.
Psychosomatics 1.0
weeks		 1.1
weeks		 n/a 4 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very fast even with four reviewers. The total process from first submission to acceptance after revision took only about ten days. However, I have recently had another paper accepted by the journal (not yet published) and the review process was a bit longer with only two reviwers. But still fast (I will submit ratings here for that review process later)
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 4.0
weeks		 5.1
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Hypertension 2.0
weeks		 3.0
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Serious journal that respect the timing
Journal of Sexual Medicine 17.4
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 4 1
(bad)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: They spend 4 months with my article without any feedback. Later it was accepted.
BMC Psychiatry 17.4
weeks		 18.9
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
BMC Infectious Diseases 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The review process was too long. The journal did not respond my emails when I asked for an update of the manuscript status.
Geological Magazine 19.5
weeks		 19.5
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: waiting for 9-11 month to show our paper online is not productive for a researchers.
Blood n/a n/a 1.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cancer Research 9.0
weeks		 9.0
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Machining Science and Technology 6.0
weeks		 8.0
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: This is the first time I submitted a research paper to MST and I am fully satisfied with the review process as well as editorial assistance.
FEBS Journal n/a n/a 14.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)