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
Philosophical Quarterly 3.3
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Philosophical Explorations 19.5
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of the History of Philosophy 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Philosophical Review 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The referee report was terrible: unsympathetic in the extreme, rude in tone, with various unmotivated objections.
Annals of Surgical Oncology 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Surgical Oncology 1.0
weeks
4.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 17.4
weeks
36.9
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: A first decision (major revision) was made available to the author 4 months after initial submission following to several remiders and was based on the evaluation of one Associate Editor. A final decision was taken 4.5 months after submitting the revised paper upon repeated reminders to the Editor-in_Chief herself.
Journal of Human Resources n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Industrial and Labor Relations Review n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
British Journal of Psychiatry n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Helpful comments from editor
Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Submission involved mailing paper version to Italy.
Article initially rejected, despite positive reviewer comments. Request was made for editor to reconsider, who agreed to a resubmission (after 6 weeks of consideration). Revised manuscript submitted, addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript returned to 1 reviewer and subsequently rejected.
Mathematische Annalen 10.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The review was inconsistent in its outlook and poorly expressed. It should have been sent to a second reviewer.
Geometric and Functional Analysis n/a n/a 42.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Synthesis Literature n/a n/a 91.2
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: While the editors originally promised feedback within a month and a half, and they only got back to me after three months, their message showed that the article went through a proper internal review process and the reasons for rejections were fair and absolutely acceptable.
BMC Public Health 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
PLoS ONE 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Drawn back
Motivation: It should not take 4 months to get a decision.
BMC Public Health n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Health Policy and Planning n/a n/a 36.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
The Lancet Global Health n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the manuscript was rejected within three days, we initially submitted a presubmission inquiry on March 13 but never received a response.
AIDS and Behavior 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews we received were quite positive and constructive, but the editor rejected the manuscript anyway.
Sexually Transmitted Infections n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the final submission was May 19, I actually submitted it on May 5, after which the editors asked me to provide additional information which created further delays. In my opinion, if they were going to reject the paper they could have done so without asking for the additional information and causing this delay.
Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine n/a n/a 30.4
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editorial decision took 4 weeks, than rejected without review. An inquiry after three weeks if a review process had been initiated was not answered. Standard rejection letter with reference to "immediate" (!!!) editorial decision.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 17.4
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The submission process was organized, automated, transparent and efficient.
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 28.2
weeks
28.2
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Comparative Education 23.0
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 1
(bad)
Rejected
European Physical Journal, B Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: My paper was accepted within one month. This is probably because it was not sent to external referees. At least I did not receive any referee reports.
Physical Review E n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My paper was rejected by an associate editor without sending it to external reviewers. Although I believe my paper to be of similar quality as other papers that do get published in the journal, I was happy that it took only about a week to receive the rejection message. So little time was lost.
Population, Space and Place 15.2
weeks
15.2
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Health Affairs n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Archives of Sexual Behavior 34.7
weeks
65.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Drawn back
American Review of Public Administration 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Administration and Society 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Lancet Oncology n/a n/a 0.1
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejection within 1hour.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering n/a n/a 121.6
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I have never experienced similar in my 20-years research, incl about 100 paper submissions.
One month after the rejection we finally got an explanation from the editor:
"It should be an initial reject as it is a narrow study limited to Norwegian shelf and does not add value to the readers."
In fact, the paper does not deal with the Norwegian shelf at all - it deals with the rig market in Gulf of Mexico...
Demography 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Social Science and Medicine 5.0
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process started very well and quick. However, after the first round the remaining referee came up with questionable accusations of scientific dishonesty. I feel that the editor could have cut the process short after the first round of revisions. That would have saved 3 months of nonsense.
Review of Economic Studies n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the European Economic Association n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)