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
Socio-Economic Review 17.7
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of European Social Policy 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Social Policy 11.3
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: I believe that one of the reviews was quite unfair in the way that one of the main criticism could be applied to a wide range of papers, including those already published in the journal itself. However, the editors decided to favour the rather unfair biased review rather than the other positive one.
Social Politics 18.6
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
European Sociological Review 38.9
weeks
38.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The editors took 9 months to come to the first decision and I understand that our paper wasn't the only one that took such a long time.
Social Science Research 23.9
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Sex Roles n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Work, Employment and Society 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Sociology of Education 4.6
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal executed the review process quickly, which is always appreciated. However, the reviews were poorly written and poorly executed--to the extent that it is questionable whether or not some of the reviewers actually read the manuscript. The quality and helpfulness of the reviews was supplanted by the speed of the review process.
Applied Linguistics 26.0
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Time between submission and reviewer reports too long and difficult communication with editorial office when trying to determine the status of the submission.
English for Specific Purposes 13.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The procedure was efficient and quick.
European Journal of Operational Research 5.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were substantive. The review process was smooth, and the review rounds have taken the the same amount of time. Time between submission and publication were below 9 months.
Diversity and Distributions 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Geochemical Transactions 6.4
weeks
10.8
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 12.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: In addition to the 2 referee reports, the (associate) editor made some very helpful remarks that improved the presentation.
Philosophical Studies 18.1
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Four months overall for an answer is quite OK; the reviewer was reasonably quick (around 2 months) and obviously an expert on the topic of the paper; after receiving the referee's report, the editors took about 1 month to send the decision out. (Time estimated are derived from the updates on the paper status from the journal's website.)
Biology Letters 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent, very speed process; high quality revisions
European Union Politics n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor replied immediately and provided constructive feed-back for possible revisions.
Computers and Fluids 42.1
weeks
50.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
American Journal of Sociology 73.8
weeks
73.8
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took 17 months. The reviewers had no expertise in the relevant theory or methods. When I tried to contact the editorial office to get an update on the status of our submission, I got no response. (Efforts to contact the journal included 6 attempts directed at the editor and managing editor, and included both email and telephone messages.)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.3
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The two reviews for my manuscript were excellent. However, I would have liked to see more interaction between the the anonymous reviewers in terms of responding to some of their more content-based analyses and comments. It seemed as though my revisions were signed off by an editor, rather than by the reviewers. So this part of the review process could be clarified. Essentially, I would have liked to ensure that my response to some theoretical challenges was acceptable and/or justified correctly by the reviewers themselves.

I was quite pleased with the entire process. The deadlines for responding to comments were enough and extensions were possible. If anything, I took longer to address the comments. This paper might have been able to be finalized 1-2 months sooner. I highly recommend considering ASDE for submission. But it is important to read the author guidelines and incorporate those into your first submission from the get-go!
Ecological Research 5.6
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back
Economics Letters 9.1
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Economics Letters used to be extremely slow. The current editorial team has really improved things.
Cell Communication and Signaling 3.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The comments by the reviewers were constructive and resulted in a better paper at the end. All their concern were well founded. What is most important is that the manuscript was not rejected straight away, and allowed the resubmission of the corrected manuscript.

The Editor was also very professional and supportive.
Journal of Biological Chemistry n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The journal considered our manuscript "out of scope" and thus rejected it.
The process was fast and relatively clear.
Journal of Chemical Physics 5.3
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was extremely efficient and professional.
The review process was quick.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 6.9
weeks
25.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Computers in Human Behavior 10.3
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
The International Journal of Press/Politics 10.6
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Personality and Individual Differences 25.6
weeks
28.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Biologia 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Annales Zoologici Fennici 18.3
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 13.1
weeks
33.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent, personal communication with journal's office. Speedy reviews. Mixed quality of reviews: one from external reviewe (very good quality), another from one of the editors (poor quality, offensive tone). Production process at Springer was a complete desaster: someone in India added multiple errors to the manuscript.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 7.9
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Geophysical Research Letters n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Sociology of Education 11.3
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: I received my rejection in less than 3 months, the reviews were of exceptionally high quality and improved the later version of my paper significantly.
European Sociological Review 26.0
weeks
44.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17.7
weeks
34.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review reports were of high quality and helpful for strenghtening the paper.
Southern Economic Journal 6.9
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast handling of the reviewing process.
Human Resource Management Journal 7.6
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected