All reviews received by SciRev

Submit a review Create journal list
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
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
Energy and Fuels 8.7
weeks		 10.1
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process is always well-scheduled. Often responces come before the scheduled time.The reviewers are competent and helpful. The improvement of my papers after revision is tremendous.
Fuel 52.1
weeks		 52.1
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)		 Drawn back
Motivation: There is no any editorial disciplne. The paper was kept 1 year. Very poor managerial skills of the editors and indifference to the work of other people.
Agricultural Economics n/a n/a 1.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor provided an extremely quick response and seemed to have the best interests of the authors as a priority.
Environmental and Resource Economics n/a n/a 85.1
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Took nearly three months for the Editor to reject a manuscript without sending out to review.
Theoretical & Applied Ethics 4.3
weeks		 5.3
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Journal of Supercritical Fluids 8.7
weeks		 9.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: High reputation of the Regional Editor, the reviewing and revising processes follow clear schedule, the reviewers are attentive, professional, helpful and polite.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30.4
weeks		 30.4
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Combustion and Flame 0.3
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very agile review process. Reviewer's comments were irregular, some of them were very useful and insightful, others were trivial.
Philosophical Psychology 30.4
weeks		 30.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 13.0
weeks		 13.4
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Analysis n/a n/a 7.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Philosophy n/a n/a 19.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Dialectica n/a n/a 364.8
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Philosophical Quarterly 3.3
weeks		 3.3
weeks		 n/a 1 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Philosophical Explorations 19.5
weeks		 30.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 4.3
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Journal of the History of Philosophy 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Philosophical Review 21.7
weeks		 21.7
weeks		 n/a 1 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The referee report was terrible: unsympathetic in the extreme, rude in tone, with various unmotivated objections.
Annals of Surgical Oncology 5.3
weeks		 5.3
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Journal of Surgical Oncology 1.0
weeks		 4.7
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy n/a n/a 5.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 17.4
weeks		 36.9
weeks		 n/a 1 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Accepted
Motivation: A first decision (major revision) was made available to the author 4 months after initial submission following to several remiders and was based on the evaluation of one Associate Editor. A final decision was taken 4.5 months after submitting the revised paper upon repeated reminders to the Editor-in_Chief herself.