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
Sociology of Health and Illness 10.4
weeks
23.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We waited nearly 3.5 weeks for a decision on our manuscript - which is the longest I've ever experienced. It's a shame as AEE is a fantastic journal but I'd never submit there again. Would particularly advise ECR to steer clear and instead go for a journal which has shorter, and more justifiable, waiting times.
Journal of the American Chemical Society n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Typically, desk rejections in JACS happened to us quickly. In this case, it was a very unpleasant surprise to get a desk rection after nearly a month long wait without any feedback whatsoever.
Journal of Scientific Research n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was not within the scope of the Journal.
Children and Society Drawn back before first editorial decision after 30 days Drawn back
Physical Review Materials 4.3
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
ACS Nano 4.1
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Science Advances 7.3
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Chemical Physics 4.7
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Physical Review Letters 8.6
weeks
20.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2.1
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Research Policy n/a n/a 35.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Associate editor considered the topic interesting enough but recommended immediate rejection based on what they thought were (quite secondary) issues in the analyses. This is the type of feedback I expect to receive from reviewers and be given the chance to respond — not the type of feedback that should justify desk rejection, in my view.
Journal of Business Venturing n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 9.0
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough reviews that helped us clarify the message. Smooth process as usual with JEMS.
Work, Employment and Society n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Marketing 27.4
weeks
47.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Drawn back
Scientia Iranica 23.0
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: very long review process!
Journal of Intellectual Capital 8.7
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' report was excellent. They identified the shortcoming very thoroughly.
East European Journal of Psycholinguistics (Shìdnoêvropejsʹkij žurnal psiholìngvìstiki) 3.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Motivation: The reviews came after only three weeks. However, one reviewer was clearly not a reliable expert on anything similar to the topic we investigated and their comments were unreasonable. For example, they claimed that our manuscript was missing the Discussion section (when it was not) and that we misunderstood the main object of our research, which we have been researching for several years prior to submission... The second reviewer's comments were very tepid. We felt we could not adequately address the comments and that the manuscript would not considerably improve.
International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We got an immediate desk-reject. The editor has a checklist of reasons that would cause immediate rejection. The applicable one in our case was that the journal does not publish studies that use convenience sampling (which we use in our paper).

There was no scientific argument for rejecting the paper on that ground (our study did not have a specific segment and we demonstrated equality in key composition in the experimental treatments). It was either a pure 'matter of principle' or the editor just didn't like the paper and used this as an excuse.

At any rate, at least they didn't sit on the paper for long and we could quickly resubmit somewhere else.
npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 4.3
weeks
16.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Geophysical Research Letters 5.6
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Elife 8.7
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Chemical Science 6.9
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of the American Chemical Society 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers had decided that the work was not sufficiently novel despite that it identified key issues in the field which had been previously ignored. Perhaps the journal was not a good choice for increasing access to our field.
IEEE Access 13.7
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: A bit of delay but good reviews overall
Applied Clinical Informatics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very superficial rejection after only one day
DISEGNARECON 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
American Journal of Epidemiology n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We received only one superficial review after 2 months of wait, with outright rejection as decision...
Micromachines 1.1
weeks
1.3
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: High time pressure on both reviewers and authors - nice for rapid publication, but can also have drawbacks. Downgraded for poor copyediting.
Lab on a Chip 3.9
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick turnaround, all-around positive.
Demography n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Social Science and Medicine Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks Accepted (im.)
Demography 10.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Social Science and Medicine 7.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Geophysical Research Letters 9.3
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Exceptionally slow review process based on only 1-2 reviewers.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My paper was with editor for 3 weeks. The submission site displayed "under review" instead of "with editor", which is unnecessarily confusing. I received a desk rejection e-mail that was clearly a template directed to authors whose paper had been under peer review. Overall dissatisfied.