All reviews received by SciRev

Submit a review Create journal list
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
Media, Culture and Society 13.5
weeks		 13.5
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: We received one set of comments and it was very brief. Not what you would expect after three months of waiting. We requested for the second reviewer's comments. The editorial office would not respond. There was a standard line in the email which read 'given the amount of manuscripts under review we are often only able to offer brief indications as to why, after careful reading, a manuscript has not been selected for publication and these indications have been sent along with this message'.

It was difficult to work out whether the brief indication was full review by a reviewer or not. The office would not respond to queries.
Toxicology n/a n/a 10.5
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It appears to me that the Editor(s) want to promote the new online Journal they suggested in the rejection mail.
Representation 4.3
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: They cut-up my figures and re-assembled them to make them fit better the page. Unfortunately they messed up a bit, and it took two weeks at the proofing stage to sort this out (they weren't able to fix it and I produced new figures according to their attempts). Overall a quite ordinary experience.
Journal of Consumer Policy 4.0
weeks		 5.0
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Terrorism and Political Violence 4.3
weeks		 7.3
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process was exemplary. Quick turn around, excellent comments, an involved, professional and motivated senior editor. Well done!
Journal of Mathematical Biology 2.9
weeks		 2.9
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The rejection was based mainly in one of the reviewers that pointed that it was not significant discovery without any argumentation (in only two sentences).
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 14.0
weeks		 18.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: It was a long time between the submission of the revision and the final decision since it was only a minor revision and I suspect it was not sent to the reviewers (do not know for sure). Also the process between the acceptance and the final publication is being quite long.
Death Studies 17.4
weeks		 46.9
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I felt that the authours could be informed sooner about the editorial decisions and without having to ask for a reply three months after (re)submission. Apart from this, the collaboration with the editors during the review process went fine.
Astronomy and Astrophysics n/a n/a 3.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computer Physics Communications 6.0
weeks		 11.8
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer's comments were helpful and practical. Also, the editor's notes helped to improve the manuscript. Generally, the communication with the journal was easy, fast and constructive.
Tobacco Control 8.7
weeks		 9.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: After being asked to make revisions, which we did, the manuscript was rejected with no specific reason other than generic reasons like lack of space.
International Journal for Equity in Health 8.7
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal of Sleep Research 5.4
weeks		 8.9
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process was reasonably quick, the reviewer comments were really helpful, and also after publication the publisher was very quick in correcting the omissions.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 130.2
weeks		 151.2
weeks		 n/a 4 2
(moderate)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Motivation: Good reports, quick handling.
Agricultural Systems 10.8
weeks		 21.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Fundamenta Informaticae 4.3
weeks		 5.3
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite fast (half a year in total). The reviews were detailed and exhaustive. I do not know, how long the publishing process is.
Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux 23.1
weeks		 23.1
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 16.1
weeks		 16.1
weeks		 n/a 1 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 14.4
weeks		 24.3
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I can not complain.
Acta Arithmetica 40.4
weeks		 62.0
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process took quite a long time.
Aquatic Geochemistry 13.1
weeks		 13.1
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Applied Geochemistry 21.4
weeks		 21.4
weeks		 n/a 3 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: theoretical problems asserted by Associate Editor was wrong, in fact the manuscript was accepted in other journal
Marine Resource Economics 17.4
weeks		 39.1
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
Motivation: I did not agree with the criticisms of the reviewer. They had a fundamental problem with the methodology, even though it has been well established elsewhere. I believe I had addressed these criticisms, including multiple citations to the approach.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) n/a n/a 6.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A quick and honest response, although not what we were expecting. The editor made suggestions for alternative journals that he felt the paper would be better suited to. The paper has been resubmitted elsewhere now.
Cultural Studies of Science Education n/a n/a 182.4
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 4 months after submission, a first request from author's side was answered with "accepted with minor revision" by a junior editor. One review was available. Some 2 months later the manuscript was rejected with "revise before review" by a chief editor. No reason was provided for this calamity.
Modern Law Review n/a n/a 30.4
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The summary of reasons for rejection was most helpful, illuminating both the strengths of the piece, the reason for rejection (the topic was too specific for the journal) and suggested revisions prior to submission elsewhere. This is valuable and appreciated.
European Journal of International Law n/a n/a 60.8
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The principal suggestion for improvement is to provide a summary of reasons for rejection instead of a boilerplate letter that gives the author guidance on whether the manuscript was unsuitable for reasons of topic (originality, topicality, subject-specificity), quality (research, analysis, writing) and/or other reasons. This need not be lengthy (one paragraph can suffice) but nevertheless is far more useful than a standard rejection letter that tells the author nothing, even on a general level.
Scientometrics 11.0
weeks		 15.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Entomologica Fennica 14.0
weeks		 14.0
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
World Politics n/a n/a 273.6
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This was a very long review, unconventional as it seemed the paper was reviewed by one reviewer only (a member of the editorial board I assume), and the feedback given by the editor was extremely short, unhelpful, and worryingly off topic. I will not submit a paper there again.
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 9.9
weeks		 9.9
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Rejected
ACM Transactions on Information Systems 55.0
weeks		 97.0
weeks		 n/a 3 1
(bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The journal's entire turnaround was overly long, holding up my paper yet providing no help. The editor responded very slowly with my queries. Reviewers appear to change in different rounds, so all my revision based on previous reviewers' comments was in vain.
Cultural Sociology 26.0
weeks		 34.7
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Accepted
PLoS ONE 21.7
weeks		 21.7
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: Aside from the initial review process taking 5 months for a journal who's motto is "accelerating peer reviewed research" I have several reservations about the appropriateness of both the handling editor and reviewers for my manuscripts. Both reviewers openly admitted a lack of basic knowledge of the statistical approaches used in the manuscript, yet critiqued the research for statistical reasons. One of the reasons for rejection given was based on an unsubstantiated opinion of one of the reviewers. The journal indicates that the appeal process takes longer than the initial review process so I am moving on. I will likely never review for this journal again, and will be pretty desperate before sending them another manuscript.
Social Science Research 4.3
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 5.4
weeks		 12.4
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal of Cheminformatics 3.3
weeks		 5.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: This manuscript was a software article. Despite the following issue the reviewing process was fast and simple.

The manuscript had to revised and resubmitted three times because one of the reviewers had a problem with the software. However, fixing it was beyond the anonymous peer-reviewing-process since more (personal) information were needed. Finally, the editors (in agreement with the reviewer) accepted the manuscript and the software.

Still, all involved persons were always friendly and we never felt to have been treated unfairly. The suggestions by both reviewers were reasonable and improved both the manuscript and the software. We definitely recommend to submit to this journal!
Business Research 8.7
weeks		 28.8
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted