All reviews received by SciRev

Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
13.4 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
14.3 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
13.3 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.1 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and insightful review process. When I did not agree with all comments of the reviewers, the editor respected this. The communication went very smoothly.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0.0 weeks
Drawn back
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0.0 weeks
Drawn back
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
5.1 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
8.0 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
19.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Editor quickly handled the manuscript assigning reviewers within 10 days from submission.
We received two reports within 4 months. One was particularly detailed and gave us the opportunity to improve the manuscript by clarifying some points which we didn't explain in a crystal-clear way.
5.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2.7 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
7.0 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
19.7 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
7.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Only from one reviewer we received comments. Not sure a second one was found. Comments were however usefull
2.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were professional with relevant backgrounds and the whole process was tightly managed by the editor
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Rapid turnaround, there were very minor revisions so it was a good experience
3.4 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review was professional and timely.
After the revision was sent it was quickly processed and accepted.
It was clear that the reviewers had the relevant background
Immediately accepted after 0.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: A brevia paper in Ecography
Immediately accepted after 15.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: My paper was sent to review by two reviewers, and was accepted within 7 months
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
10.0 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: The expedience of this review process was a plus. However, 2 of the 3 review reports were unsatisfactory: one barely commented on the quality of the manuscript and instead focussed on particular aspects that could easily be addressed in comments, while the other had a number of confusing (at one point commenting on a missing figure panel, when there was no such figure panel intended for or ever mentioned in the manuscript). That the editor relied on these subpar reviews to make a decision is unfortunate. It is understandable that this is a fairly high impact journal with a great number of submissions, but that the reviews were not scrutinized is, again, unfortunate.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: We got very interesting comments from reviewers.
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
1
Rejected
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: We specifically ask the reviewer not to consider someone as reviewer, as our findings are highly critical of that person's work. Yet reviewer 1 was clearly that person (exact same viewpoint and same wording of specific parts of their papers) and picked out every possible misunderstanding to reject the paper.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
199 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very long wait for a desk rejection. Repeatedly asked about status to no avail.
27.4 weeks
27.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Referee's report was shallow and useless despite the time taken to complete it. Referee did not seem to have the qualifications necessary to review the methodology and the subject of the article.
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
Motivation: The editorial process was poor, We did not receive any substantial comment about our manuscript, just say that Objective errors in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in this manuscript that prevent further consideration.

But it does not show evidence of these methodological flaws, it is only a personal appreciation without scientific foundation
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They suggested an automated transfer to the sister journal Advanced Engineering Materials. However, it's worth noting that (1) Advanced Engineering Materials is ranked much (8/415 vs. 146/415) lower than Advanced Materials in the Web of Knowledge and that (2) it is an open-access journal with an APC of US$4330.
20.9 weeks
26.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: We had a good experience with the journal. The referee report made us aware of an alternative interesting method, which we implemented and bettered the paper. We also feel that Economics & Politics is more open-minded in terms of topics.
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Neither of the reviewers nor the editor (on hindsight) thought that a hypothetical treatment was a clever idea. In that sense, a desk reject would have been less painful, but then we did get more detailed comments on the manuscript.