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 Social Research Methodology 8.7
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I have received decently useful comments in a reasonable time. Fast online publication before print. However, it may takes up to a year or more before the final version is published.
Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor works hard to get reviewers comply with the deadlines. In general, I believe he manages well exchanges between authors and reviewers.
International Journal of Business and Social Science 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews contained no comments at all. They were only yes/no evaluations based on six criteria. Very disappointing... I even suspect - although I have no proof of this - that the review process is bogus. Besides, I had asked the editor to wait before publishing the article because I was waiting fo an official authorization from my organization, but he did not.
Evaluation Review 19.5
weeks
22.5
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very helpful Editor.
Journal of European Public Policy 4.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I have received very useful reviews in a short time. The online prepublication version of my article was published in less than 6 months following initial submission. Moreover, the Editors are open to suggestions and do not follow 'slavishly' reviewers' comments.
Cognition and Emotion 60.8
weeks
103.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was handled professionally with high-quality reports given by external reviewers.
Clinical Anatomy n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Clinical Otolaryngology 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Easy communication with the editorial office.
Help to try to improve and reach pubblication rather than quick rejection.
The comments and critics by reviewers were logical and objective
British Journal of Social Psychology 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Social and Cultural Geography 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Children and Society 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I was very disappointing to wait over three months for a rejection based on one flimsy review. A desk reject would have been much preferred. Alternatively I would have expected much more robust feedback, even if that led to a rejection.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Personnel Review 52.1
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Even when the reviews were in, it took the editor months to make/ communicate his/her decision.
Public Management Review 10.0
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: relatively quick review procedure + editor aimed at publishing interesting paper ; and improving manuscripts, rather being an easy rejector
Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Professional and personal handling of the manuscript, fast review, helpfulness of journal staff. Especially the fast handling was brilliant compared to other journals!
Journal of Contemporary Asia 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The process from submission to decision is very efficient. The editor, Kevin Hewison, does a good job on it.
Plant Molecular Biology 4.4
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: - online submittiance to Plant Mol Biol is simple and fast
- review process is transparent and relatively fast
- the selected anonymous reviewers provided helpful criticism with realistic chances to respond properly and in appropriate time
- the handling Editor was an expert in this field and obviously selected the reviewers carefully, also overall handling of the manuscript was very professional
Drug Safety 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The rejection per se was not the problem - that's life in science- but rather the EXTREME time lag from submission to rejection.
Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 3.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6.5
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the publication process was fairly quick and well-streamlined. I particularly benefited from one of the two reviews my paper received, which was maximally useful in the revision process (clear, to the point, and pointing to highly relevant literature I was not familiar with before). This was a feature of the process that stood out (I realize there's an element of luck involved, of course).
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Molecular Plant Pathology 4.0
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Molecular Plant Pathology has a very rapid handling process, first decisions are usually reached within 4 weeks after submission. The editors often have a positive and constructive attitude.
Signal Processing: Image Communication 7.0
weeks
16.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Our experience was good, the reviews were constructive (and kind) and, though the second review took a little longer than the first, we felt that, overall, response was very quick.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 6.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was painless really. Reviews were useful; they had opposite views which really helped develop some of the work. Timings above are to the best of memory.

The only real issue, small but annoying, was the journal website said APA referencing style 3, on submission the editor initially instantly rejected it as he said APA 5, but the reviewers were on APA 6 (or other). This took a while to fix, but was just tedious.

It would be great if Journals would create an Endnote/other style for download, it might seem lazy, but it would save everyone time and allow focus on the actual detail of the work. It would also allow for changes in referencing styles to easily fixed/updated.
Ecology 6.5
weeks
6.5
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Aquatic Sciences 8.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Russian Review 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: One of the reviewers recommended revision. This reviewer had read the text and the feedback was generally constructive and sensible. The second reviewer rejected the manuscript outright on grounds other than the content of the manuscript. The second reviewer's comments were a systematic deconstruction/rejection of the paper with little evidence that the paper had been read and the content understood. I contacted Russian Review and asked them to send me a copy of their instructions for peer reviewers and I was told they have none (!)
Industrial Relations 10.8
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The referee reports were really clear and the communication with the editorial staff was smooth. The few queries I had were hadled quickly and professionally
Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis 13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I got two referees, one extremely helpful and one not-so-helpful. I am very satisfied overall with the delays and quality of reviews.
Nucleic Acids Research 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I was impressed by the speed of the review process.
Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 0.7
weeks
0.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Mathematische Annalen 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
American Anthropologist 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 5 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: No engagement with positive aspects of review, minimal advise on improvement.
International Feminist Journal of Politics 8.7
weeks
15.2
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The handling was overall efficient, cordial, and fair. The publication time (from acceptance to print) was 1 year. Insistence on word limits added to the difficulty of finalizing. Handling of figures did not allow colour reproductions, even for electronic version without substantial cost, and figure space counts towards word limit, making the task even more difficult.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 0.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Online publishing system for sending a little messy. The editor replied quickly. One of the reviewers did not respond for a long time, although his comments related only to the style of the text.
Physical Review E 10.8
weeks
10.8
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: It took two months or so to get two reviews (which were really helpful by the way), but what makes this submission remarkable is that the editor had to contact 11 peers to get these two reviews. Some people immediately refused to review the paper, but most of them just did not respond to the editor requests. The editor handled the process really well; he or she managed to provide timely feedback even given the lack of response from the reviewers.
IATSS Research 23.9
weeks
24.2
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast, constructive comments