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
Biological Conservation 20.3
weeks
20.3
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: My criticism was that it took the journal nearly half a year to get two reviewers to write an extremely short and unconstructive review. Added to that, one of the reviewers seemed incompetent with regard to the topic of the paper due to the nature of the comments received.
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 24.0
weeks
24.0
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Scientific Reports 11.0
weeks
26.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Functional Ecology 7.4
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was returned to us for a moderate amount of revision, and unlike our experience with several other journals he accepted it without subjecting the revised version to multiple rounds of further review. We have consistently had good experiences with this journal; although they don't always accept our work (well, their acceptance rate is now <15%), they are fast and constructive, and whenever they do return our work to be revised they will usually accept the revised version without delaying it with further unnecessary rounds of re-review. Our labgroup is very satisfied with this journal.
Ecology Letters 5.4
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was sent to 3 reviewers. All were generally positive, and the Editor decided on 'reject allowing resubmission'. We put a lot of work into revising it to satisfy what the reviewers wanted and sewnt the new version back in. It went to the same 3 reviewers; two were supportive while the third decided to move the goal posts. The Editor decided on that basis to reject. The tone of the editor was a bit condescending and superior which is unfortunalely not the first time I have encountered this attitude from that journal.
Environmental Conservation 8.0
weeks
35.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Diversity and Distributions 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Ecography 11.1
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was long, but reviewers did a great job checking every part of the manuscript and appendices. Suggestions were good but required a lot of new work to be done.
Biological Conservation n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected by a single editor with a very evasive rejection motive, 4 words: "more suitable for a specialized journal". Not even a word about what kind of "specialized journal" the editor is referring to.
PLoS ONE 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers took a very long time to reject the paper. The article submitted was within the self-imposed criteria of Plos One. Only one reviewer objected entirely and sounded biases, yet the article was not send to a third reviewer to provide a fair review. The reviewer who objected wanted to have an entirely different study produced and did not really take any interest in what data was provided.
Microbial Ecology 5.7
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process and the choice of reviewers was very good. The reviewers were picky but fair. The editor seemed interested and always rather in favor of the authors. The editorial process post-acception was fast and efficient.
Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 33.3
weeks
43.1
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: After an 8 month delay only very minor corrections were requested. These were made within 24 hours and the paper resubmitted. Nevertheless, it still took over 2 more months to get a further (acceptance) response.
Phonology 17.9
weeks
41.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was sent to three reviewers who all recommended acceptance. The Associate Editor was most critical, and the revised manuscript was sent back to one of the three reviewers. Unfortunately, the second turn-around time was long. But overall, the review process improved the strength of the paper.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 21.7
weeks
27.3
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were point full and improved the MS
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.6
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The entire process went very quickly (though we did pay for Fast-Track) and relatively smoothly. I would have liked more feedback on what was going on during the review and re-review, but everything was completed within the promised time. Finally, I had some concerns with the quality of one of the reviews, but the editor appears to have addressed it.
Contemporary Security Policy n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick and "friendly" rejection. They suggested me to look for a more European journal. So, although the journal has published research with European cases, it is a US-journal, which is not too fond of EU-research.
Electoral Studies 17.9
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Average handling of manuscript. The reasons for the rejection are stated clearly enough.
Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society 26.0
weeks
26.2
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Manuscripta Mathematica 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Pacific Journal of Mathematics 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 5.3
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
European Union Politics 10.4
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent experience. Reviews of high quality, very good correspondence with the editorial team.
Journal of Economic Psychology n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Precision Agriculture 9.3
weeks
26.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ethnic and Racial Studies 8.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Clinical Virology 10.1
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
International Journal of Autonomous and Adaptive Communications Systems 10.9
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Teacher Education 26.9
weeks
45.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The length of time for reviews was very long. I revised the manuscript following the advice of the first reviewers. One had accepted the manuscript with no changes, the other asked for revisions. But then the editors sent the manuscript out to new reviewers who raised other issues. At this point I think it would have been fair to have treated the manuscript as being a first submission and give me the opportunity to revise.
Social Science Research 28.3
weeks
37.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
European Sociological Review 25.9
weeks
25.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Judgment and Decision Making n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Jonathan Baron reviews all submissions very thoroughly before sending them out to reviewers or rejecting them. He gives great comments and puts a lot of effort into his work.
Theory and Decision n/a n/a 52.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6.4
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Science of the Total Environment n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Atmospheric Environment 15.9
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Atmospheric Environment 19.6
weeks
19.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Atmospheric Environment 12.6
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Social Psychology 18.7
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Environmental Earth Sciences 12.4
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall the authors are satisfied with the review process. We would send our paper to EES again without any problems. We only had some doubts about the number of the reviewers; we received one review, but from the first editorial response we understood there were at least two. When we wrote to the Editor asking about the second review, we didn't receive any response, so we concluded there was only one reviewer. However, we'd prefer to get a response from the Editor. Beside this, we’d like to emphasise that our experience with EES Journal was very good and we appreciate their decision to publish our paper.