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
Translational Behavioral Medicine 3.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: I was overall very happy with the reviews I received from this journal and their reasoning for rejecting the manuscript. It also was a fairly quick process. However, I believe one of the reviews was a bit unprofessional, as they started it by saying they were recommending rejection and then provided reasons for it. This is in contrast to how I've been taught to review a manuscript.
Frontiers in Earth Science 7.9
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is different from usual review procedures.
The editor informs the authors about the reviews that can be consulted on an interactive review forum. This way, each answer can be posted independently, not as a block, allowing to discuss specific points with the reviewers until the revised manuscript is endorsed by both of them. In this interactive forum, the editor can also be directly contacted.
Tectonics 7.1
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Advances in Calculus of Variations 4.6
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was breathtakingly fast.
Pomorstvo - Scientific Journal of Maritime Research 2.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Visualized Experiments 7.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: For author-produced articles, JoVE separates the review process for the manuscript and the video. Manuscript was reviewed by 2 reviewers, that did not see the video and had only minor questions regarding the paper. Video part was thoroughly checked by the editor/producers, who asked for a lot of minor changes.
Acta Sociologica 11.0
weeks
37.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Experimental Education 16.9
weeks
43.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: One reviewer who initially reviewed my manuscript did not respond when they was re-invited to re-review my revised manuscript. It made the review process significantly slower, but the editor did his best to expedite the process.
Analyst 4.6
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
RSC Advances 2.6
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Feminist Review 59.3
weeks
59.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 8.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Very fast and fluent process, with reviewers that really do an effort to read a paper and review it properly. Given the very low acceptance rate (<7%), it is not unexpected that the paper was rejected
New Media and Society 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical 52.1
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I have sent my manuscript in the journal. The process took nearly one year, even I had sent 3 emails to ask about my manuscript status. I hope this journal will improve this because it really took very long time, even after that I got a rejection with some simple reasons.
Screen 28.1
weeks
28.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Slow but thorough process. Only 11% acceptance rate. Narrow disciplinary focus, reviewers said the paper wasn't "screen studies" enough. .
European Sociological Review 17.9
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The process took a bit longer than expected and was not easy to track, but the quality of the reviews made the wait worthwhile. Although the reviews did not recommend rejection per se, the paper was rejected. No reason was specified, but the range of suggested revisions in the reviews was probably too large for the journal to bother with "revise and resubmit" given its generally low acceptance rate. Under the circumstances, the decision seemed fair.
Public Policy and Administration n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Circulation 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Only one reviewer.
Extremely poor review and unclear reasons for rejection.
ACS Nano n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It was not up to ACS nano, probably.
Nature Physics 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Wireless Personal Communications 16.0
weeks
40.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "too descriptive"
Leisure Studies 1.4
weeks
1.4
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 4
(very good)
Rejected
Nanoscale 4.7
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: They took more time than expected time to accept the revised manuscript.
Advanced Functional Materials 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: After we asked the Editor for any update regarding the paper the 1st round of review came quickly. Reports from 1 reviewer in particular were overly destructive and led to outright rejection.
Scientific Reports 19.0
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The most painful, inefficient and frustrating dealing with a journal I have had in a 25 year scientific career. After a ridiculous battle with their initial quality check which meant that it took 2 weeks after submission to get anyone to even look at it, it took an outrageous 19 weeks for primary review. After this infuriating wait, the feeble comments that came back could have been written by an undergraduate that had scanned the paper in 5 minutes.
We turned the revised version around in a week, had yet another battle with their content management system and quality check, and it still took a further 14 days to accept the minute changes that had been requested. I had submitted 2 papers nearly simultaneously to Scientific Reports, and the second was treated equally inefficiently. The administrative/editorial staff seemed perpetually overwhelmed, responses to emailed inquiries were slow or absent. We were desperate to get our work published in time to be able to cite it in our grant applications before their respective deadlines and were unable to, which weakened our applications significantly.

Extremely frustrating. We will not submit to Scientific Reports again.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 20.7
weeks
35.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
International Journal of Public Administration 30.9
weeks
106.9
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor ignored the external review process and rejected the paper after more than 2 years.
Journal of Differential Equations n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I received the following comments from the editor-in-chief: "The topic and the methods are by now relatively standard, so that the innovative part is not up to the expected level.
While the paper deserves to be published, I would say, the proper forum is some journal devoted to mathematical physics."
Sociology 12.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: reviewers argued that pper was not theoretical enough for this journal - this is more of an editorial decision in my opinion. reviews were very short and superficial, no real effort from 2 reviewers to give constructive criticism, editor could have offered a revise to sharpen the theoretcial contribution
European Sociological Review 15.1
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Very competitive journal, but relatively fast process with grounded reviews
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection time, particularly since the manuscript was sent just before Christmas. Editor comments were not extremely helpful, but at least it seemed that they had looked into the manuscript.
Mathematische Nachrichten 21.7
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Functional Analysis n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Reviews in Mathematical Physics 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry n/a n/a 22.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I feel that the handling of the manuscripts is subject to publication bias.

The manuscripts are not reviewed properly, they reject based on the claim that some info is not present while it is present (very clearly presented in material and methods section, 1st paragraph, not easy to miss!!!).
ISA Transactions 10.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Global Change Biology 10.1
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Food Chemistry 29.4
weeks
46.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Overall duration of the process unacceptable. Quality of the process highly debatable.
One reviewer asked to perform a totally different experiment, of a duration of two or three years (this was literally written!).
If the handling editor would share this view, should reject immediately and not let us waste additional five months for a resubmission, second round of revision and final rejection.
Both the behavior of one of the two reviewer and of the handling editor being inadequate, from the point of view of all the coauthors.
American Journal of Sports Medicine n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)