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
PLoS ONE 5.0
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Educational Researcher n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Common Market Studies 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: We are very satisfied about the contact with the editorial office, as well as with the speed of the process. The reviewer reports, however, were less informative, as the comments suggested that they did not read the paper in detail.
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics n/a n/a 140.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Carbohydrate Research 9.7
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of International Development 32.4
weeks
32.4
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Six months after submission, I emailed the editorial office to enquire about the status of my paper. The contact person claimed she emailed a reviewer and never heard from them. I wanted to withdraw my paper. But she encouraged me to wait because she assigned a new reviewer. After almost 2 months, I get an email saying "Further to a discussion with the editors your article has been declined for publication." No reviewer reports whatsover. So I have no idea how many reviewers reviewed the paper. I have no idea what their comments were. Absolutely horrible experience. I will never encourage anyone to submit their paper to this journal.
Social Forces 15.2
weeks
15.2
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Despite my paper being rejected by the editor, the reviews were extensive, on-topic and helpful. Good review process.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 19.1
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was smooth and relatively quick. My only frustration was that the editor made a lot of unnecessary minor edits after acceptance. Some of these altered the meaning of sentences and resulted in inaccuracies that I had to address.
British Journal of Occupational Therapy 11.6
weeks
33.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: In the first round the editor(s) failed to send me the full text of one of the reviewers' reports. It took a number of months before the editorial team realised this, which delayed the process substantially. The time from acceptance to publication was 8 months.
Reviews in Mathematical Physics 52.1
weeks
69.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Carbon 8.7
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: It took awhile (2 months) to hear back from reviewers, but otherwise great experience.
Optics Letters n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nano Letters n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Personnel Psychology 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The turnaround time was relatively short and as "advertized". The reviews were polite and constructive in tone, and focused primarily on shortcomings. While the reviewers had a few suggestions for improvement, they could have been more developmental. Some of the criticisms appeared too demanding to me.
Journal of Business and Psychology 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor explained their decision in detail. The feedback was constructive and focused on both strengths and weaknesses. The comments by the editor and the reviewers contained specific advice on how I could proceed with the manuscript, including references.
Organization Studies 18.0
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Journal of Business Ethics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The reason that the manuscript does not fit the journal made no sense to me, especially because it had been under review at two similar journals.
Business and Society 11.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The feedback was polite. The editor provided suggestions on where to send the manuscript. The single review consisted of two paragraphs.
Business Ethics Quarterly 21.0
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Peptides 3.0
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Regulatory Peptides 1.7
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
British Journal of Industrial Relations n/a n/a 0.1
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: very quick immediate rejection, so no time lost
Strategic Management Journal n/a n/a 44.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No reasons for desk reject except for "fit"; it took the editor more than 30 days to come to that decision
Journal of Insect Conservation 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
American Naturalist n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 10.0
weeks
10.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Health Policy Drawn back before first editorial decision after 167 days Drawn back
Motivation: After 5 1/2 months in submission the paper had not even been sent to reviewers. On contacting them the publishers said there was a considerable backlog following 'editorial restructuring' and that they couldn't predict a review time. Messages sent to the editorial team received no reply at all... As I wanted my research reported this year I withdrew the paper and resubmitted to another journal. Health Policy is a quality journal, but it's clearly having difficulties at the present time and I would think twice about submitting any time critical papers to them
Evolution 6.0
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Environmental and Resource Economics 39.1
weeks
73.8
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Global Environmental Change 34.7
weeks
36.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Energy Policy 30.4
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews and handling were fast and efficient, but referee reports of pretty poor quality.
Behavioral and Brain Functions 6.0
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast handling by the editors and reviewers. The reviewers were familiar wtih the topic.
Biological Psychiatry n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Contemporary Religion n/a n/a 76.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Journal follows somewhat unorthodox and quite extensive style guidelines, which have to be adhered to before a manuscript is considered.
Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Experience was very pleasing. Even though the initial requirements (all figures in *.eps format etc) were painful the speed of the review process and handling by the editor were excellent.
World Development 34.7
weeks
40.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very long and the reviewers were from a competing field, with little expertise in this specific field (as they acknowledged in the reviews). They came with a negative verdict in the second review round (based on vague arguments), which was uncritically taken over by the editor. After I complained about this, the editor told me that he would discuss the issue with somebody from the editorial team and that this could take another three weeks to a month. It then took 15 weeks and required two reminders from my side before I finally got an answer. He let me know that they would allow me to submit the paper again and start a completely new review process. However, after this experience (which meant a time loss of over a year), I did not want to run the risk of more delay and published in another journal.
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected without in-depth review process, the journal did nor provide any scientific reasons for the rejection. The editors have felt that the scope of the manuscript would fit to a more applied and specilized journal.
Nature Communications 6.5
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fair and had high scientific quality, I would recommend this journal to others. However I have to say that the online manuscript tracking system is a bit clumsy and doesn't provide much information.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering 10.0
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was prompt and correct and based on the comments the manuscripts was greatly improved.