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 |
Social Science and Medicine | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: I feel the paper hasn't been judged but probably the editor did not like the topic or approach | |||||||
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management | n/a | n/a | 7.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
International Journal of Finance and Economics | n/a | n/a | 82.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: The editor informed me that an expert recommended him to reject the paper. This was after 3 months the paper should be reviewed. I sent several letters to demand a copy of the Reviewer's comments - if such a reviewer existed. My emails were ignored. |
|||||||
European Sociological Review | 39.6 weeks |
39.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Too lengthy review period | |||||||
British Journal of Sociology | n/a | n/a | 71.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Social Forces | 16.1 weeks |
33.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv | Immediately accepted after 5.3 weeks | Accepted (im.) | |||||
Journal of Vocational Behavior | 6.0 weeks |
6.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
Gender and Education | 19.7 weeks |
19.9 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Supportive Care in Cancer | n/a | n/a | 26.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory | 13.0 weeks |
13.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
Reference and User Services Quarterly | 8.3 weeks |
15.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The editor Barry Trott was very professional and communicated with me regularly with updates on the process. He responded to all my e-mails in a day or two. This was in fact and best communication with an editor that I have ever had. | |||||||
Nature Biotechnology | 11.7 weeks |
19.0 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
International Journal of the Commons | 9.7 weeks |
9.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
PLoS ONE | 8.0 weeks |
9.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: PLOS One took a long time to find an academic editor. | |||||||
Social Psychology Quarterly | 10.4 weeks |
20.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected |
Motivation: I think the editor of this journal did an outstanding job (despite of the fact that she rejected our submission). We received a editorial letter that summarized the different reviews very well and suggested a clear direction for the revision. After the reject in the second round we received an elaborate explanation. | |||||||
Economic and Industrial Democracy | 8.3 weeks |
25.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
Addictive Behaviors | 13.9 weeks |
25.3 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The whole process was a bit slow and the only reviewer report we received did not contribute much to the improvement of the paper; rather we just lost 5 months with it. | |||||||
Organization | n/a | n/a | 68.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: The submission occurred at the end of July and was in the 'awaiting Associate Editor assignment' stage for a long time. After 2.5 months I emailed them and got a response about a week later with a rejection from the editor. The response was not very long and detailed. However it was written very constructively and they encouraged me to submit a new version of the paper after major revisions. | |||||||
IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine | 11.0 weeks |
11.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Motivation: The quality of the reviews do not match the quality of the journal. | |||||||
Robotics and Autonomous Systems | 7.4 weeks |
8.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Reviews quality was OK but processing and publication times were really fast. | |||||||
International Migration Review | 32.3 weeks |
54.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The process was slow, the reviews were detailed and fair, and the outcome is a much better paper. | |||||||
Australian Journal of Rural Health | 13.1 weeks |
13.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Motivation: It was a fair review, but 3 months is a long time to wait, just for a rejection. | |||||||
Medical Journal of Australia | n/a | n/a | 30.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: This is the first and only time I have had a manuscript rejected without it being reviewed by external reviewers of by an editor; and also the first time I've had a rejection but without any reason being provided for the rejection. | |||||||
British Journal of Health Psychology | n/a | n/a | 6.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Transportation Research, Part D: Transport and Environment | 42.1 weeks |
45.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The reviews were very valuable and constructive, from someone who was very knowledgeable of the field. The reviews enhanced the quality of paper a lot. | |||||||
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health | n/a | n/a | 5.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Journal of Public Health | n/a | n/a | 1.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: The decision was very fast. They stated the suitability of the article on the journal and suggested where can I publish the manuscript. | |||||||
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society | 6.7 weeks |
19.7 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Brazilian Journal of Physics | 1.0 weeks |
1.0 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Everything was fine, fast, and convenient (the editorial office would copy edit our manuscript so I was not required to send a revised version), but when we received the proofs we discovered that substantial changes had been performed on our manuscript, is some cases changing completely the meaning of what we were stating. We had to correct all passages. It would be better to let us to prepare the revised version. | |||||||
Materials Research | 8.4 weeks |
8.4 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The review process was OK, but I had to complain to the editorial office to receive the information that the work had been accepted (they informed me that they "already had" the review), after acceptance there was a long time until the proofs were sent to me and, after that, a long time until the manuscript appeared in the "ahead of print" section of their website. Again, there was a long period until a doi number was assigned and then I discovered the manuscript had already been published (without receiving any information from the editorial office). Anyway, it is a small journal published by scientific societies (so, no major publisher is involved), still, they should maintain a bit of professionalism in handling the manuscripts. | |||||||
Journal of Rural Studies | n/a | n/a | 45.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: They mentioned the focus of their journal and where potentially my manuscript can be sent. | |||||||
Journal of South Asian Development | 34.1 weeks |
34.1 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
Psychology and Health | n/a | n/a | 10.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: One week after submission the status of the paper changed to 'Under review'. Two days later, however, the paper was rejected anyway. | |||||||
Journal of Business Strategy | Immediately accepted after 10.0 weeks | Accepted (im.) | |||||
Poetics | 25.7 weeks |
25.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | 6.7 weeks |
11.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Review was quick and of good quality | |||||||
Sexually Transmitted Infections | 10.4 weeks |
12.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Sexually Transmitted Infections | 4.3 weeks |
6.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Agricultural Systems | 14.6 weeks |
16.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Interesting review that clearly improved the final manuscript. Five weeks to get under review seems a long time but I guess it is not always easy to find reviewers. |