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
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 3.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Materials Chemistry and Physics 34.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Organization Science n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Waste Management 13.0
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reasonable speed for answer, good quality reviews that added value to the paper.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 6.0
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer comments were thorough, to the point and useful. Communication was polite and clear.
Europe-Asia Studies Drawn back before first editorial decision after 668 days Drawn back
Motivation: After I submitted the paper I sent 6 e-mails (one every 4 months) to understand what is going on. The replies to my e-mails provided contradictory information: one said that a decision will be reached soon and three months later the e-mail said that they are still waiting for a reviewer,
World Journal of Gastroenterology 5.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The whole process took a lot of effort and was very unclear. At first the manuscript appeared to be accepted, however after we chose not to pay for an English language check by a firm suggested by them and had it done by our own universities language center, the manuscript was rejected. The reason why the manuscript was rejected remained unclear. We attempted a complaint with someone listed as chief editor but never got a response.
European Political Science 13.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast turnaround, there were sompe problems with the online submission system.
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews were constructive and polite, however somewhat general and motivated from the reviewers personal view on the topic.
American Journal of Gastroenterology 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were thorough, polite, and useful.
PLoS Medicine n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: PLOS Medicine has a special "presubmission inquiry" process. You can send in your abstract to this process and within 3 days you will receive an advise on whether to send in your whole manuscript for a longer review process or whether to send it to a different journal.
American Journal of Gastroenterology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Communication was swift and polite.
Contemporary Politics 13.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very swift turnaround, professional behavior of the editor, and useful cmments provided by the reviewers.
Communist and Post-Communist Studies 39.1
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After waiting for approximately 7 months I have received a short letter (four to five lines) in which the editor explained that they do not accept my manuscript for publication and they provide no comments to rejected manuscripts.
British Educational Research Journal 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very rapid turnaround. The article was a controversial one, and I expected at least one hostile reviewer to respond to, but the editors were very fair in sending it to reviewers who would be objective.
Critical Studies in Education 21.7
weeks
24.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Environmental Modelling and Software 13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ecography n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Not well motivated why the manuscript was not sent out on review.
Journal of Ecology n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Associate editor had read the manuscript and the persons name was given in the decision.
Journal of Applied Ecology n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Poorly motivated why the manuscript was not sent out for review.
Environmental Pollution 6.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: It seems they had problems finding reviewers, hence the long first round. Otherwise they were rather fast and the paper appeared online after a month; with page number.
Knowledge Management Research and Practice 26.0
weeks
28.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Technovation 34.7
weeks
69.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: It took forever.
Journal of Human Resources n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 78.1
weeks
78.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: After I submitted the paper I sent more than 10 emails to understand what is going on. none of my emails was replied. I withdrew the article after one year of my submission. 6 months later I took an email from the editor which says the paper was accepted with minor revisions. this was the worse submission process ever.
Biology of Sport 0.1
weeks
1.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: fair journal with reasonable waiting times and reasonable revisions.
Economics Letters 60.8
weeks
60.8
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: the final review report did not touch the core issues, rather it used the fitness with the journal as the reason for rejection. But if so, it should not have taken 14 months to decide whether the paper fitted the journal or not.
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 21.7
weeks
21.8
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The only issue is that the reviewer's comments (while kinda insightful) focused on a really small part of the paper itself, without addressing the general idea. Overall, however, I am satisfied with the review process.
De Economist 4.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Population Studies 8.7
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Central European Journal of Biology n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The peer review was well above my expectation and satisfaction. Reviewers provided valuable comments and high words of appreciation. Editor was kind enough in extending his/her willingness on the submission.
Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 32.5
weeks
32.5
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Mapan 17.4
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry 13.0
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The referee report is positive and polite even though there are many suggested corrrections. The review time is short, and the time between acceptance and published online is short. I like it.
Developing Economies n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 17.4
weeks
22.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 8.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: it took over 2 months for the review, a little bit long
Research on Social Work Practice 6.0
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The highlight of the review process was that it was very fast. The editor was very efficient and responsive. Most of the comments from the reviewers made sense and were very reasonable. Overall it was a positive experience for me.