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
Psychological Medicine 8.1
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Nature n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 8.7
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After the first round of reviews (which we received end of February 2018), we addressed every point and updated the paper (March 2018). Reviews were helpful and made our paper better. However, after 2 months (end of May 2018), we were rejected.

We didn't get any proper explanation neither from reviewers nor from the Editor of Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Specialty Chief Editor send 1 sentence from which was not clear whether or not he read our updated paper or reviews we got. He wrote that we were not willing to address changes (which was not true), but he also didn't write any points to support his statement.

Rejections are a part of publishing a scientific paper, but in order to actually make them helpful for scientists, people who are making executive decisions should give actual arguments and explanations. In other words, they should be required to act scientific.
Science n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17.3
weeks
38.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
EMBO Reports 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Even though it was rejected, we received excellent advice. We restructured the manuscript and performed new experiments before submitting elsewhere.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 15.4
weeks
49.2
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Terrible journal - editors will keep saying they are interested in your manuscript but taking way too long to handle them, and request major edits. Too much effort for a 1.3 impact factor journal.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript has too many figures and tables was given as the main reason for rejection, which leads me to believe this journal is interested only in publishing abstract and vague articles with no focus on scientific detail or rigour. Which is not surprising, given they have had retract a large number of previous papers with erroneous results and data. Not a recommended journal.
Expert Systems with Applications n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the American Medical Association 5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Chemical Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We do not feel the manuscript was throughly assessed, rejection was due to it not being in the top 10%. It is not clear what top 10% means if work is rejected even even though it does not have a strong precedent and had potentially very broad applications. The recommendation was to transfer to Org Biomol Chem. It appears to us that the manuscript only received a cursory look (no details on why it is not in the top 10%). A response from us to the editor's decision was not followed through in a timely manner, requiring a reminder. At the time of the reminder, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and submit to another venue that has been much fairer in its handling of our manuscripts, and to avoid further delays. It is our view that good papers are shunted to other journals within a publisher to promote IFs of those journals.
Journal of the American Chemical Society n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor sent a rejection after "having evaluated it myself" (apparently, not having proofread the reply for typographical errors), and having deemed it unsuitable for the "broad readership of JACS and recommended sending it to JOC. Similar but more specialized (limited) chemistry was published in the same journal, which appears to have made the editor consider our work "well known" at this time. There are substantial differences in both the outcome and the potential path for that outcome in our work as compared to the published work. Therefore, it seems like the editor may have skimmed through the abstract and possibly one scheme. We did not feel that proper review of a scientific discovery was undertaken.
Nano Energy 4.7
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The decision was taken using the only negative, unchanged report of one reviewer (evidently biased) during the review process against two other very positive review reports. The authors do not understand the reason behind it.
Journal of the American Chemical Society 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science Translational Medicine n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS Computational Biology 13.4
weeks
34.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
JAMA Internal Medicine n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Advanced Energy Materials n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Advanced Functional Materials n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research n/a n/a 364.8
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 12 months of waiting, my coauthors and I received a two-sentence desk rejection from the editor. I wrote to him asking for an explanation; have not heard back and don't expect to.
Nature Nanotechnology 12.9
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: It took 3 month for review process.
Journal of European Public Policy 7.6
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: It was an outstanding review process with JEPP. The editors are very active, serious, and encouraging. Good reviewer selection, speedy process, no delays.
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications Immediately accepted after 0.3 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: Very Fast!
Nature Geoscience n/a n/a 33.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: User-friendly submission portal, but a disappointingly long waiting time to hear something back from the editor (33 days).
Emerging Infectious Diseases 43.6
weeks
43.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Exceptionally slow review process, with no communication from the journal. Even when we requested updates they just gave non-specific responses. The slowness of review is not acceptable, especially as the manuscript was time sensitive in regards to its material.
British Medical Journal n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Lancet 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Very good contact with editor who discussed why manuscript rejected. Reviewers were fair and constructive in their criticism. The whole process ran smoothly, even though ultimately rejected.
Nature Photonics n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It is a quick rejection, not painful. "The unfortunate fact is that we receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this sort are made by the editors when it appears that papers - including those of high quality - are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space."
Nature Methods n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It is Nature Methods' policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without peer-review, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.

Among the considerations that arise at this stage are a manuscript's probable interest, level of methodological development and immediate practical relevance to a general readership. We do not doubt the technical quality of your work or that it will be of interest to others who wish to reduce the speckle effect during OCT imaging. However, I am sorry to say we do not think that the technical advances presented will have a sufficiently significant and immediate impact on a broader readership to justify publication in Nature Methods.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Light: Science and Applications n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Biomedical Engineering n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor opens many tabs for editor's works. So mistake could occur easily. I think they are overworked.
Journal of Pain 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 4 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Journal was very quick. One review was of good quality, constructive and definitely improved the manuscript. Reviewer 3 was embarrassing and unfair: "It is not clear if this correlation was corrected for multiple comparisons (p=0.16/3 = 0.048)" on a correlation reported in MS of (r = -0.63; p < 0.016) and reviewer 4 was embarrassing. Both not appear to be experts on the topic. Reviewers bad choice and superficial assessment of associate editor.
Inorganic Chemistry n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Before Rejecting, editor pointed out that why our manuscript was not fit to publish in inorganic Chemistry. Happy with editor's decision
Nature Communications 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Process speed was normal. Reviews were useful but slightly aggressive.
Ecological Entomology 13.7
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Expert Systems with Applications 60.6
weeks
65.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: In the review reports it was so clear that the reviewers invested serious time and effort with both initial and revised version of the manuscript. Frankly, I was surprised what details they were noticing, like: at one paragraph I've referenced wrong source by accident (Mendeley for LibreOffice has tricky interface), a reviewer noticed that the source does not correspond to the sentence where the citation was. To provide right perspective: the revised version of the paper had 108 references and more than 25k words, the paragraph is in the middle of the paper, covering less relevant aspect of the research - it wasn't part of the main chapters! This is what I perceive as top level professionalism! Here, don't get it wrong: it was one of very few objections being technical/formal in nature - the majority of the remarks were very concrete objections on the methodology, adopted methods, design decisions.... really, to produce such feedback you have to read the paper carefully and not only once. How hard it was to follow and understand the initial version - I became fully aware few months later, when had to translate it and integrate in the PhD thesis. If my head was exploding - then it couldn't be an easy task for the reviewers. In addition, they were not giving just objections / points that have to be improved, but also few very constructive ideas / directions / advises. Also, it is worth to mention that there was significant overlap in objections given by two reviewers - unlike with some other journal where I got conflicting requests in the same review iteration.

Related to the question on rejection motivation, I would expand on the selected answer:
+ changes were not significant enough for several points (cca: 2/10) (here I left out "considered" intentionally, as I do agree with the reviewers - the revision deadline forced me sent it unpolished)
+ with revision, two new objections surfaced (the reviewers really gave solid arguments why these are critical, couldn't agree more - once they made me aware in the feedback)
+ the research is interesting (all parties stated it in both review iterations), but it was clear even to me that theoretical contribution is not that significant

(btw. the latest IF of the journal is around 4!). As a reviewer well noticed in the second feedback: "combination of several practical and basic steps, ... ... with some improvements... but can't be considered as a solid contribution...".

Despite being rejected (both reviewers clearly stated in the second feedback that it should be rejected - with very sound arguments), I can't find anything negative in the whole review process. Only criticism that I could state is about the submission web interface/system, that is outdated and very buggy: it accepts only obsolete document formats, provides step by step instructions that are confusing and conflicting to each other. It took, in total - for both submissions - more than 12 hours to get proper PDF document for my final approval (note that I'm using LibreOffice, not MS Office - so, it was probably huge part of the adventure) - but that is, in fact, the issue of the publisher's older version of submission system. Regarding the editorial board and the reviewers: it is the most professionally carried out review process - out of four I've experienced in the last two years (all journals had IF above 1). With some other journals, I had reviewers that were reading "diagonally" - even abstract - more than half of their objections were simply: not true (it happens when you do not really read the text in front of you). So, such dramatic difference between this journal and them - is my main motivation to invest time and write all of this.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 16.1
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The two review reports received were largely accurate and helpful. I have two concerns with the general editorial handling.

1) Nine days after the initial submission, I received a request from the same journal to review another manuscript. While this was not suitable for me, I felt more obliged than usual, as I suspected that the review request might have come from the same associate editor handling my paper. Normally, one would know, but in this case, the identity of the handling editor was not revealed until the final decision (of the first submission) was made, 113 days after submission! While I am generally happy to review manuscripts, and the one assigned to me fit well, it felt like a little bit of a "blackmail" situation. (On a side note, after submitting my review of that manuscript on time, that manuscript was ready for decision for around four months before a decision was taken!)

2) It is not acceptable that a journal, that allows their reviewers 14 days to complete a report, takes such long time to reach a decision!