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
Scandinavian Journal of Economics 17.9
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 17.4
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was reasonably expeditious and reviewers' comments contributed to improving the paper.
Communications in Mathematical Physics n/a n/a 121.6
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 4 months I wrote to the Editorial Office and they immediately reply that
You paper is still under review, but I will contact the editor in case there is need of reminders.
Stem Cell Research 6.0
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and straightforward review/submission process.
BMC Molecular Biology 23.0
weeks
58.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The overall review process took a very long time. Sending several reminders after each submission step seemed to speed up the process, no clue what the outcome would be without those reminders. Based on the communication with the associate editor, it was clear that the internal communication in this journal was not working properly. However, for the fact that apparantly they had a hard time to find reviewers, they should get some credit.
Media, Culture and Society 13.5
weeks
13.5
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We received one set of comments and it was very brief. Not what you would expect after three months of waiting. We requested for the second reviewer's comments. The editorial office would not respond. There was a standard line in the email which read 'given the amount of manuscripts under review we are often only able to offer brief indications as to why, after careful reading, a manuscript has not been selected for publication and these indications have been sent along with this message'.

It was difficult to work out whether the brief indication was full review by a reviewer or not. The office would not respond to queries.
Toxicology n/a n/a 10.5
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It appears to me that the Editor(s) want to promote the new online Journal they suggested in the rejection mail.
Representation 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: They cut-up my figures and re-assembled them to make them fit better the page. Unfortunately they messed up a bit, and it took two weeks at the proofing stage to sort this out (they weren't able to fix it and I produced new figures according to their attempts). Overall a quite ordinary experience.
Journal of Consumer Policy 4.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Terrorism and Political Violence 4.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was exemplary. Quick turn around, excellent comments, an involved, professional and motivated senior editor. Well done!
Journal of Mathematical Biology 2.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The rejection was based mainly in one of the reviewers that pointed that it was not significant discovery without any argumentation (in only two sentences).
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 14.0
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: It was a long time between the submission of the revision and the final decision since it was only a minor revision and I suspect it was not sent to the reviewers (do not know for sure). Also the process between the acceptance and the final publication is being quite long.
Death Studies 17.4
weeks
46.9
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I felt that the authours could be informed sooner about the editorial decisions and without having to ask for a reply three months after (re)submission. Apart from this, the collaboration with the editors during the review process went fine.
Astronomy and Astrophysics n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computer Physics Communications 6.0
weeks
11.8
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer's comments were helpful and practical. Also, the editor's notes helped to improve the manuscript. Generally, the communication with the journal was easy, fast and constructive.
Tobacco Control 8.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After being asked to make revisions, which we did, the manuscript was rejected with no specific reason other than generic reasons like lack of space.
International Journal for Equity in Health 8.7
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Sleep Research 5.4
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was reasonably quick, the reviewer comments were really helpful, and also after publication the publisher was very quick in correcting the omissions.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 130.2
weeks
151.2
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Good reports, quick handling.
Agricultural Systems 10.8
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Fundamenta Informaticae 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite fast (half a year in total). The reviews were detailed and exhaustive. I do not know, how long the publishing process is.
Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux 23.1
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 16.1
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 14.4
weeks
24.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I can not complain.
Acta Arithmetica 40.4
weeks
62.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took quite a long time.
Aquatic Geochemistry 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Applied Geochemistry 21.4
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: theoretical problems asserted by Associate Editor was wrong, in fact the manuscript was accepted in other journal
Marine Resource Economics 17.4
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: I did not agree with the criticisms of the reviewer. They had a fundamental problem with the methodology, even though it has been well established elsewhere. I believe I had addressed these criticisms, including multiple citations to the approach.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A quick and honest response, although not what we were expecting. The editor made suggestions for alternative journals that he felt the paper would be better suited to. The paper has been resubmitted elsewhere now.
Cultural Studies of Science Education n/a n/a 182.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 4 months after submission, a first request from author's side was answered with "accepted with minor revision" by a junior editor. One review was available. Some 2 months later the manuscript was rejected with "revise before review" by a chief editor. No reason was provided for this calamity.
Modern Law Review n/a n/a 30.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The summary of reasons for rejection was most helpful, illuminating both the strengths of the piece, the reason for rejection (the topic was too specific for the journal) and suggested revisions prior to submission elsewhere. This is valuable and appreciated.
European Journal of International Law n/a n/a 60.8
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The principal suggestion for improvement is to provide a summary of reasons for rejection instead of a boilerplate letter that gives the author guidance on whether the manuscript was unsuitable for reasons of topic (originality, topicality, subject-specificity), quality (research, analysis, writing) and/or other reasons. This need not be lengthy (one paragraph can suffice) but nevertheless is far more useful than a standard rejection letter that tells the author nothing, even on a general level.
Scientometrics 11.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Entomologica Fennica 14.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
World Politics n/a n/a 273.6
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This was a very long review, unconventional as it seemed the paper was reviewed by one reviewer only (a member of the editorial board I assume), and the feedback given by the editor was extremely short, unhelpful, and worryingly off topic. I will not submit a paper there again.
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 9.9
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
ACM Transactions on Information Systems 55.0
weeks
97.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal's entire turnaround was overly long, holding up my paper yet providing no help. The editor responded very slowly with my queries. Reviewers appear to change in different rounds, so all my revision based on previous reviewers' comments was in vain.
Cultural Sociology 26.0
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted