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
Political Studies Review 12.6
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Contemporary European Studies 11.1
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ethnic and Racial Studies n/a n/a 45.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
ACS Catalysis 4.3
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ecological Indicators 11.0
weeks
19.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Advanced Materials Interfaces 3.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Correct and fast revision process, I recommend this journal!
JAMA Network Open 6.0
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Information Science 17.1
weeks
19.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer comments helped me to identify the weaknesses and strengths of my manuscript. When I incorporated the said changes, the quality of my manuscript was enhanced.
Review of Economics and Statistics n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: desk rejection without reasons stated
Nature Communications 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Politics 11.7
weeks
19.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Fluorine Chemistry 3.7
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent journal for Fluorine related work. The editor is a gentleman, unlike other ones. I applaude.
Nature Ecology and Evolution n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Response from journal: "As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to reviewers, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, even if reviewers were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, we do not believe that it represents a development of sufficient importance to warrant publication in Nature Ecology & Evolution. These editorial judgements are based on such considerations as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness.

In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal. "
Nature n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process was reasonably quick, particularly since we submitted on the Easter weekend. I think they read and thought about the manuscript and gave a fair, albeit disappointing response. I greatly appreciated that they did not give just a boiler plate response and instead provided useful guidance.
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18.0
weeks
25.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were extremely helpful, as well as the editor's own anonymous comments. It was a bit slow but understandably so given the pandemic.
Environmental Science and Technology 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Despite our manuscript going to review straight after submitting, the paper was rejected. We received three fantastic and encouraging reviews, of which highlighted major text changes but did not require new analyses or state any methodological flaws. The reviews do not reflect the decision of reject, especially because the rejection was based on criteria which should have been assessed prior to sending to external review. We contested the decision but subject editor refused to reconsider, despite the positive reviews.
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 20.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Editor's decision was largely based on few very short comments (from one reviewer), which were due to some obvious errors in understanding of the paper. We tried to bring this up with the Editor but never received a reply.
Bioinformatics 14.4
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewer comments were generally good. Would have hoped it would have gone faster, but I guess that's always the case.
Science n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.

We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
Political Studies 10.0
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 14.7
weeks
14.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The comments of the reviewers are very instructive and interesting
The only weak point is the waiting time which is long
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 16.6
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This journal provides a clear review process that is constructive for the manuscript revision. The time for external review is swift. In addition, the reviewers' feedback was insightful so the manuscript was shaped in a sound manner. I encourage colleagues of the healthcare arena to submit their work to this journal.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I felt the article was rejected really quickly (less than 1day), and based on the critics made by the Editor, it seemed that the article was not properly read.
Srpski Arhiv Za Celokupno Lekarstvo Drawn back before first editorial decision after 169 days Drawn back
Motivation: After 21 weeks, the manuscript had not been sent to review. I contacted the editor two times after that, but I never received a reply.
Journal of Social Psychology n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The great advantage of this journal is that the response is relatively quick compared to other journals.
I started getting e-mails from the editor a week after submitting
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: In favor: Quick rejection.
Against: they do not give a reason, even if the article does not have enough impact, it is understood as a valid reason but they only commented not suitable.
Journal of Archaeological Science 8.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Nitrogen 1.9
weeks
2.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of High Energy Physics 16.1
weeks
37.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 8.7
weeks
9.8
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: The review process looked normal to start with. Three reviewers gave constructive comments. However, the editor bolded the instruction in the email body that insisted us to use their language editing service, although no reviewer has requested it. This is not surprising as the cost of such a service is the same price to the open access fee.
The language editor does not seem to understand research, nor statistical method. The language editor changed the manuscript into a student’s thesis style. The language editing itself changed our precise description into a wording mess. Somehow, The language editor even changed our method and asked why we did not mention it early (of course not, because we did not use that method at all).
After we completed all reviewers' requests and added additional data, the editor personally requested additional data which were not requested in the first peer-reviewing round, and those data are only confirming the existing information using a different method. Such data do not add any scientific value, yet the editor insisted we repeating the whole study to provide these new data. It seems that he ignored the fact in our method that it takes 6 months to repeat the experiment involving animals. It is questionable whether this editor understands basic research. We did not want to respond to such an unethical request and then the manuscript was rejected.
After we checked out the wiki page for the editor-in-chief for this journal/publishing house (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrios_Spandidos#cite_note-:0-5), we decided not to appeal.
Waterlines 5.1
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I was really impressed with the way the journal handle the submission. The review process was quick and fast. We received really nice feedback from the reviewers, which has helped in improving the readability of the paper.
Convergence 10.4
weeks
33.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: At first, the manuscript received two positive reviewer reports asking for revision. In the second round, one reviewer suggested minor revisions while the other said that even though the paper was strengthened it still needed more work. In the third report, a new reviewer was introduced whose report was also in a positive tone asking for revisions. The fourth time, I have only received one reviewer report from a new reviewer who briefly stated that the manuscript was not adequate for the journal (stating that the sampling was too limited and arguing that the manuscript was not a good fit for the journal).
Complete waste of my time and the time of previous reviewers since all of their reports were positive. The new reviewer (Reviewer 5 as it has been named by the journal) was also pretty rude and the report was not constructive at all, lacking any kind of suggestions. I have lost 9 months with this journal and it was the worst experience I ever had with a journal. I strongly recommend everyone to stay away.
Macroeconomic Dynamics 31.9
weeks
31.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took a very long period of time, about 8 months, to conclude rejection.
Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 7.7
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Chinese Journal of Physics 44.1
weeks
44.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations 4.1
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 19.6
weeks
19.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Applied and Computational Mathematics 17.4
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Asian-European Journal of Mathematics 3.4
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
British Journal of Educational Technology n/a n/a 22.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)