All reviews - Page 1

All reviews received by SciRev

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome
PLoS ONE	6.4 weeks	16.1 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
PLoS ONE	Motivation: Despite providing an array of choices of an associate editor familiar with the paper's subject, it was assigned to an associate editor with no familiarity with it, who in turn selected reviewers similarly unfamiliar with it (and in some cases hostile to this approach). Given that the journal may publish more papers on this approach than any other, this was very disappointing. Furthermore, there was a substantial delay in sending our the manuscript for re-review, after which one of the reviewers criticized our work for not including material that was uploaded as supplementary text (but through some journal glitch, the material was not available to the reviewer). Overall, a minor comedy of errors that could have been avoided with the journal selecting an AE familiar with the subject of the paper.
Molecular Ecology Resources	5.0 weeks	6.0 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Molecular Ecology Resources	Motivation: The review process was above average for efficiency of submission and the length of time necessary to obtain a set of reviews. The reviews themselves were the typical mixed bag. After revision, the manuscript was promptly re-reviewed. In all, a reasonable process from submission to acceptance.
British Journal of Surgery	6.0 weeks	6.0 weeks	n/a	6	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Rejected
British Journal of Surgery	Motivation: A rejection i ok when you receive a proper review and in short time.
Colorectal Disease	13.0 weeks	21.0 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Colorectal Disease	Motivation: I only have good experiences with Colorectal Disease. I received an email from the editor when the first review took some time without me asking for it.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America	5.0 weeks	5.0 weeks	n/a	3	2 (moderate)	3 (good)	Rejected
PLoS Genetics	n/a	n/a	1.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Genetics	4.3 weeks	8.8 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Genetics	Motivation: The editorial process was fair and reflected referee's comments
Cellular and Molecular Biology	4.3 weeks	4.3 weeks	n/a	2	2 (moderate)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Cellular and Molecular Biology	Motivation: The reviewers were not experts in the topic.
The EMBO Journal	n/a	n/a	5.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Nucleic Acids Research	3.0 weeks	4.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Nucleic Acids Research	Motivation: All the process was extremely rapid and editor's decision reflected referee's comments. Referees were very fair and constructive.
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology	17.4 weeks	24.4 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology	Motivation: Good quality of reviewer's reports. Long review process : 8 months between the submission and the acceptance.
Current Science	11.3 weeks	22.3 weeks	n/a	1	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Current Science	Motivation: I am satisfied with the reviewing process, only the time for the reviews could have been shorter.
Physical Review Letters	8.7 weeks	8.7 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	2 (moderate)	Rejected
Physical Review Letters	Motivation: Journals whose goal is to disseminate results of general relevance for a given community (physics in this case) have a very thin line to decide what is relevant and what is not. This is unfortunate, but true. The rejection of our paper was not based on scientific considerations, since the referees agreed out results were correct, but based on their personal judgement on whether they were relevant enough or not. This is of course inevitable in this kind of peer reviewed process
ZooKeys	6.5 weeks	7.2 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
ZooKeys	Motivation: Completely satisfied with editorial process of this journal. Delays were really my doing. Could have been published much more rapidly. At each step I knew where ms was in process. Pensoft staff were responsive as was scientific editor. Also, post acceptance, Pensoft staff helped me write an effective press release that garnered considerable attention for the publication on science news websites.
Geometric and Functional Analysis	15.7 weeks	15.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Geometric and Functional Analysis	Motivation: The editor and the administrator handled this very professionally.
Journal of Functional Analysis	26.0 weeks	26.0 weeks	n/a	1	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Journal of Algebra	47.7 weeks	47.7 weeks	n/a	1	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Comedy Studies	n/a	n/a	182.4 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
European Foreign Affairs Review	8.7 weeks	8.7 weeks	n/a	0	n/a	2 (moderate)	Rejected
Astronomy and Astrophysics	n/a	n/a	7.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Astronomical Journal	8.7 weeks	8.7 weeks	n/a	1	3 (good)	3 (good)	Rejected
Astronomical Journal	Motivation: The review process for my paper took very long to find an adequate referee, but the referee itself took little time time with the paper, and deemed it well written but uninteresting for the journal.
Experimental Astronomy	11.9 weeks	14.7 weeks	n/a	1	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Experimental Astronomy	Motivation: The reviewing time was perhaps longish, but the review was thorough, and improved the paper. Part of the reviewing time was during Christmas holidays, and I took as much time to implement the changes, so I think it is justified. Editorial changes were very straightforward to implement.
Geoforum	8.7 weeks	21.7 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Geoforum	Motivation: We are very disappointed about our submission to this journal. Instead of sending our revised version to reviewers again, the editor decided to reject our manuscript after three months of waiting, without any descent comments why so. He/she referred to 'substantial issues' but refused to specify these.
Mobilities	13.0 weeks	17.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Mobilities	Motivation: Communication with the journal was very efficient, and the peer-review process was rather quick. We are very satisfied about our submission to this journal.
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems	23.9 weeks	23.9 weeks	n/a	1	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Rejected
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems	Motivation: Only one reviewer, quite short and poorly done. There was no criticism from the reviewer that could not have been addressed by a clarification of a very minor revision. No other review report was provided.
Internet Research	n/a	n/a	21.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Memetic Computing	13.0 weeks	21.7 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Memetic Computing	Motivation: The reviewer's comment were insightful, and the requests were sensible. The process was relatively fast, for a journal in my domain. Overall, I am satisfied.
Psychometrika	3.1 weeks	5.1 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted
Health Economics	21.7 weeks	21.7 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Health Economics	Motivation: Very thorough referee reports; both referees helped to improve the paper by linking to related literature.
Kyklos	n/a	n/a	14.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Nature	n/a	n/a	2.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics	13.0 weeks	16.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Philosophical Quarterly	n/a	n/a	10.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Journal of Public Affairs	Immediately accepted after 26.0 weeks						Accepted (im.)
Journal of Public Affairs	Motivation: I think 6 months is too much time to accept a manuscript without external review
Journal of Power Sources	8.7 weeks	8.7 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Journal of Power Sources	Motivation: The manuscript was rejected as the reviewers find the results not adequate to a journal that deals with actual power source. The reviewers contend that, given the depth of the Microbiology-related discussion in the manuscript, it was more suitable for a general Biotechnology Journal. I think the reviewers were correct and the Editor decision was the right one.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering	8.7 weeks	9.0 weeks	n/a	1	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Biotechnology and Bioengineering	Motivation: The Editor handles the submission very well. I strongly recommend this journal to those that work with the quantitative aspect of Biotechnology.
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery	1.9 weeks	1.9 weeks	n/a	0	n/a	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery	Motivation: Quick reply. My paper was the logical update of another paper already publicised on the same journal. Therefore, I believe it was coherent to continue publishing on the same open topic
Global Networks	15.2 weeks	19.5 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
School Psychology International	6.0 weeks	13.0 weeks	n/a	1	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Accepted
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America	2.9 weeks	2.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
	Motivation: This was a theoretical paper (which are known to be hard to push through). I found Reviewer 1 very good. In a polite way, s/he appreciated the things s/he found good, and also pointed out the gaps in the paper. This served a lot. I felt Reviewer 2 acid. In a very ironic way, s/he picked at everything - in a part of these, however, s/he was right. This was useful but the way s/he behaved, was degrading. Altogether, these reviews was very useful for me because I could re-elaborate the paper which became much stronger. The whole editorial process was smooth and rapid, the people working at PNAS was polite and elegant. Thank you.