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 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. |