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
Journal of Applied Statistics 8.7
weeks		 30.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 0.7
weeks		 13.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
ISME Journal 11.4
weeks		 12.4
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
Motivation: I wasn't satisfied with proofing process after my manuscript was accepted.
The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)		 Drawn back
Motivation: After 3 months I ma still waiting, editor says that the reviewer are busy and they will get to my paper soon, that was 3 weeks ago, now entering 4 month sinc esubmission. Prior experience, took 9 months for reviews abd finally was rejected, only to be publish withni 6 weeks in another journal.
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 3.0
weeks		 6.0
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers and Editor are really professionnal and respectfull. I submitted many times to this journal and I was always treated professionnally
Cognitive Systems Research 8.7
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 4 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: My experience with Cognitive Systems Research Journal was very positive. The review process improved the article and I was very pleased with the final result.
Language Learning 10.8
weeks		 10.8
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient process throughout. Editor offered many detailed suggestions for improving the final draft.
Sociological Quarterly 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 4 3
(good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Good journal, fast turn around. Very satisfied.
Journal of South American Earth Sciences 4.6
weeks		 6.6
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Acta Sociologica 26.0
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Current Sociology 8.7
weeks		 10.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Review was expedient, transparent, and the reviews where well founded.
Scandinavian Political Studies 17.4
weeks		 26.6
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Consciousness and Cognition 4.3
weeks		 5.1
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Biology of Sport 19.5
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 1 2
(moderate)		 1
(bad)		 Accepted
Motivation: A review report was sent me after several months from submission following to solicitation. Minor revision was requested. The editorial decision came after 1.5 mo. following to solicitation.
Journal of International Development Immediately accepted after 26.0 weeks Accepted (im.)
EXCLI Journal 8.7
weeks		 9.0
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Waste Management 13.0
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Water Resources Research n/a n/a 1.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C 8.6
weeks		 10.0
weeks		 n/a 1 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The process of submission was not through the on-line system; instead, it was in-person conversation with the editor himself. Very good speed and quality.
Water Policy 60.8
weeks		 60.8
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Progress in Electromagnetics Research 4.3
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and fair. It improved the clarity of the final manuscript and the whole publicación process was done in only 6 months.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 4.3
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Motivation: Referee report was unnecessarily offensive. Editors performed adequately.
Science n/a n/a 9.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 16.1
weeks		 26.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: Very extense but constructive comments for first revision. I would have liked better to receive a faster answer for first revision, but after that the process was quite agile.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 17.4
weeks		 20.1
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The review was thorough and comprehensive, well worth the time I had to wait for it.
Ethnicities 13.0
weeks		 19.5
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Ecological Modelling 15.2
weeks		 19.5
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I think the reviewers did a very good job at reviewing the paper, which has improved substantially before publication. The reviewing process took a relatively long time, but it was overall satisfactory.
Journal of African Economies 17.4
weeks		 30.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 12.0
weeks		 12.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: This was a paper based on an invited oral presentation. One review was brief and identified salient points that the reviewer valued. The second review was longer, asked some good questions and made some helpful suggestions that I could easily respond to with minor revisions.
Mind 47.7
weeks		 52.1
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 2
(moderate)		 Accepted
International Journal of Hospitality Management 8.7
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Annals of Tourism Research 13.0
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13.0
weeks		 21.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Planta 4.0
weeks		 5.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Cultural Dynamics 3.0
weeks		 11.7
weeks		 n/a 1 1
(bad)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Policy Sciences 10.8
weeks		 15.2
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: Policy Sciences was an excellent journal to work with. At least in our case, reviewers selected demonstrated knowledge of the specific research domain, and raised good questions. The editor is also very professional and timely in responses.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership 21.7
weeks		 21.7
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: Of the two reviews, one recommended minor revisions and one recommended rejection. Both provided evidence for their recommendations, but the referee recommending rejections actually provided inaccurate evidence (some claims about the data that we could have corrected in an authors' response had we been given the opportunity). The editor rejected the manuscript. I do not think it is professional to reject a manuscript based on one reviewer's recommendation.
Voluntas 13.0
weeks		 13.0
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The single reviewer who advised rejection wrote about the "interesting" aspects of our ms, but then offered three minor objections (one of which was that a table was oddly placed!). The concerns could have been addressed in a revision so I did not feel the objections warranted rejection. I think we deserved a chance to respond to the reviewer's suggestions. When I asked the Editor for additional feedback I received no reply. Rejecting a ms on the basis of one poor quality referee report is unprofessional.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10.8
weeks		 47.7
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I have received useful reviews in a reasonable time for the first two rounds of submission. However, the third round of revisions took almost six months.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8.7
weeks		 14.7
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Accepted
Motivation: I have received decently useful comments in a reasonable time. Fast online publication before print. However, it may takes up to a year or more before the final version is published.