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
Biomass and Bioenergy 78.1
weeks
78.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor rejected the paper without a reason and after 18 months of revision.
Social Indicators Research 3.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The entire process was pretty quick. The Editor works at a fast pace, I think.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer said "reject" the other reviewer said "revise and resubmit." The editor chose to reject it, which is fine. The reviewer comments are pretty helpful. I believe I would have a stronger paper once I address the reviewer comments.
Angewandte Chemie n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our paper was a major improvement of a previous, rather questionable paper published in Angewandte Chemie by a big name in the field. However, it was rejected based on the fact that the topic was not interesting enough. So, why could the big name prof. publish his work? This makes no sense is is not a fair process.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There was really no justification except its not interesting enough to a broad readership. However, they have, over the past years, published much more specialized papers from the big names in the field. I guess the name is more important than the scientific quality.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: I would have appreciated a speedier rejection since the overall reason was that the subject was not of suficcient interest
Journal of Medical Internet Research n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I asked a specific question about the requirements for clinical trials pre-registration and received an immediate reply from the editor stating that our paper did not meet their requirements, but might be considered for publication in their sister journal for feasibility trials. I am very grateful to have received such a clear, prompt response.
Journal of Positive Psychology 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The delay in receiving reviews was quite long, but the editor was very responsive to my queries and explained that it was due to issues with the reviewers that were, in my opinion, beyond their control.
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 26.0
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The review took 6 months, and the report was quite generic
Communications in Partial Differential Equations 56.4
weeks
57.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review took more than a year for a paper which was not so long
Annales de l'Institut Fourier 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Referee's report was not shown to the authors
Journal of Functional Analysis 30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: High level journal, but the delays are sometimes unpredictable
Archiv der Mathematik 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Quite rapid, rare for a pure mathematics journal
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity n/a n/a 49.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Educational Research Review 12.0
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Global Environmental Change 30.4
weeks
45.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Ecological Economics 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Environmental Science and Policy 8.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and efficient.
AIDS and Behavior n/a n/a 76.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I was very disappointed that a little over 2 months after submitting my paper, I heard that it had not been sent out for review because of the standard reasons "including the overall fit of the paper for AIDS and Behavior, journal priorities, number of papers awaiting assignment to an issue, as well the methods and results of the study." Normally, I would expect to hear this type of feedback within a week, so that I may submit elsewhere in an efficient manner. This was very disheartening. If a journal sits on a paper for so long, I would at least expect some reviews in return.
PLoS ONE 5.5
weeks
7.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast manuscript handling, with helpfull and fast communication in the submission stage about submission requirement details. Referee reports with useful comments. Overall, an excellent process.
Industrial and Corporate Change 73.8
weeks
73.8
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor at this journal is a disgrace to journal editors. His tenure should be terminated forthwith. The editor did not respond to any form of contact (email, telephone calls, etc.) as we tried to find out what had happened to our manuscript after well over a year of waiting for a response.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Ecological Indicators 6.5
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and professional work of editorial board. Accurate and helpful reviews.
Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 8.5
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: A very quick review and publishing process. An unedited article version was available online 9 days after acceptance, final version 2 weeks later.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 20.4
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal was extremely slow to assign peer reviewers, admitting after three months (and several enquiries from us) that they had not yet sent the manuscript out for review. Peer review comments were ultimately received from three peer reviewers, among whom there was considerable disagreement. The reviewers who criticised the manuscript were fair in their criticism and we felt that their feedback would have been relatively easy to integrate into the manuscript. However, after nearly five months, the editor recommended outright rejection, pushing our publication timelines back significantly (p<0.05).
Ecological Entomology 32.5
weeks
32.5
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: In Ecological Entomology is very poor contact with editors. After waiting 3 months for any message from the editorial board, I send few times mails (or using author centre contact forms) to editorial board with ask for decision. It was necessary to send questions to other members of the board as editor handling my paper did not answer for my messages. I took 7,5 months to get first and the only review of my paper.
Addiction Research and Theory 26.0
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The unacceptably long processing times speak for themselves. And even these were reached only by repeated "facilitation" of the editors.
Gut n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was not reviewed, but checked by someone who decided it unsuitable. In spite of this I think that a rapid response in a respectful letter saved me time enough to send the manuscript to another journal the same day. I don't agree with these methods, but at least they did not cause unnecessary delays.
Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The standard text was specially uninformative and unnecessarily impolite. Just to reject something without actually analysing the text does not need so much time: The e-mail was standard, praising their "rapid" pre-review process. I am an editor myself and consider this behaviour as a lack of respect towards the Authors
Water Research 15.2
weeks
17.2
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review process generally ok, no specific comments
Quarterly Journal of Economics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: In spite of the extremely quick and, to us, disappointing decision, the editor had carefully reviewed the paper, provided valuable feedback, motivated the decision convincingly, and suggested alternative outlets.
Science of Computer Programming 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Two out of three reviews may serve as example of bad will and incompetence. One of the reviewers explicitly acknowledged that a substantial part of the work is beyond his/her scope. Still, his review was considered valid.
Oxford Review of Education 19.5
weeks
19.5
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Overall, the review process went fine. In the end I only got feedback from one reviewers, the other one did not provide any comments.
Journal of Human Resources n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick desk rejection with useful editor response!
Economics of Education Review 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: One really good (i.e. useful) referee report, one useless report, and a useful letter from the editor.
Scandinavian Journal of Economics 17.9
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 17.4
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was reasonably expeditious and reviewers' comments contributed to improving the paper.
Communications in Mathematical Physics n/a n/a 121.6
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 4 months I wrote to the Editorial Office and they immediately reply that
You paper is still under review, but I will contact the editor in case there is need of reminders.
Stem Cell Research 6.0
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and straightforward review/submission process.
BMC Molecular Biology 23.0
weeks
58.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The overall review process took a very long time. Sending several reminders after each submission step seemed to speed up the process, no clue what the outcome would be without those reminders. Based on the communication with the associate editor, it was clear that the internal communication in this journal was not working properly. However, for the fact that apparantly they had a hard time to find reviewers, they should get some credit.