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
American Sociological Review n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although it was immediately rejected, the editor explained extensively why it was rejected and gave some useful comments on the script.
Journal of Applied Econometrics 52.1
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Motivation: The review process takes very long.
Journal of Applied Econometrics 30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Review of Income and Wealth 56.4
weeks
56.4
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Machine Vision and Applications 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Pervasive and Mobile Computing 20.3
weeks
40.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 6.0
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review with accurate and useful comments.
Applied Geochemistry 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Revisions are not constructive
Environmental Earth Sciences 15.2
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good revisions; 180 days from 1st submission to final decision
Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health n/a n/a 43.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
African Development Review n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular BioSystems 4.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: One of the 2 selected reviewers never gave its final decision on the revised version of the manuscript. The editor had to contact a member of the editorial board as a novel reviewer for the revised version. Hopefully the member of the editorial board was a real expert....but I got a response of the editor only after having suggested to withdraw my manuscript and send the you tube link to the Bob Marley Song 'I don't want to wait in vain for your love'.
Journal of Affective Disorders 6.0
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 4
(very good)
Accepted
Value in Health 13.3
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The first round review was a little slow given there were only 2 reviews but subsequent rounds got faster and the comments were balanced overall.
Nature Climate Change 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Review period was reasonable in length however it is questionnable whether the reviewers were the most appropriate - this seems to be a particular concern for social science papers.
Studies in Higher Education 28.9
weeks
28.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Too long review process; brief anonymous reviews only sent after repeated requests by author (since no clear information on review process duration was given after initial notice of paper being sent out for review).
Minerva 13.4
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Sociology of Education 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Although the reviews (4) were very challenging, they helped make for what we hope will be a lasting contribution to the literature. Top-ranked journal for a reason!
Journal of Global Optimization 5.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Quick and detailed reviews. Reviewers are trying to help and not to judge.
Canadian Journal of Political Science 13.0
weeks
32.5
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: I have received very useful reviews which improved the paper, in particular in the first round. However, I think that the review process was unnecessarily long.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Comments from reviewers and the editor were formulated in order to improve the quality of our submitted work.
Applied Soft Computing n/a n/a 617.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 20 MONTHS the editor just sent the following strange and unprofessional report:

1. The paper does not have significant contribution to soft computing.
2. Lacks novelty.
3. No comparative study.
4. Lacks details for repeatability of the experiments.
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I feel the paper hasn't been judged but probably the editor did not like the topic or approach
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.