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 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.
European Sociological Review 45.7
weeks
45.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It really took a bit long (almost a year) to get just one reviewer. The review was detailed, though.