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
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.
Health Psychology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
World Development n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Consumer Culture 19.3
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very constructive and useful reviews.
I was really impressed with this review-process.

The only drawback is that it took (in my opinion) too long when I received the first reviews.
Public Opinion Quarterly 5.9
weeks
17.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Women's Studies International Forum n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Research in Higher Education n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Urban and Regional Studies n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Social Welfare 23.0
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was handled very well by the editorial assistant. The first-round review took very long, but upon inquiry the EA quickly replied with some more information about the reason for the delay. Overall, the process went quite smoothly.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 15.4
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The suggestions of the reviewers where interesting and adequated, I fully agree with them.
They rejected it but they provided to me with a list of journals with same style requirements so my paper could be resubmitted after nochanges in style.
I considere the time delayed to answer too long, I do not recommend to submmit there if you have time constraints, like for presenting a PhD dissertation.
Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 25.9
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Food Policy n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process is relatively fast. The editor was confident to mention that s/he desk rejects 80% of the manuscripts submitted.
Higher Education 30.4
weeks
42.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Youth Studies 24.7
weeks
24.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Youth and Society 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected