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
Field Methods 10.9
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 4.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 28.4
weeks
49.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 8.9
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Marriage and Family 12.0
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Membrane Science 9.1
weeks
12.7
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: The submitted manuscript described a novel research not covered in any prior publications. The reviewers were clearly incompetent in this field and, without suggesting any relevant references, kept adding comments which showed poor understanding of the topic. We decided to withdraw the manuscript. The manuscript was published after 3 months in another Elsevier journal with similar impact factor as the Journal of Membrane Science.
Immunology 3.5
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers comments were largely acceptable and improved the final publication version.
Speed of submission to review and acceptance was not longer than 1 month. If I had to criticise it was the length of time (up to 6 months post accetptance) for the online version to appear.
Water Resources Research 8.6
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Journal of Entrepreneurship 39.1
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reasons given were very general and poor after 9 months waiting for the revission
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60 days Drawn back
European Polymer Journal 9.3
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor selected experienced and knowledgeable reviewers and they prepared excellent reviews which improved the manuscript quality.
Energy Efficiency 43.4
weeks
104.2
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The article was not accepted. I withdraw it after two years and several attempts to know what was happening with it.
Energy Policy 41.6
weeks
45.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: An extraordinarily long review process. 42 weeks for the first review period of just 2 reviewers to be completed - unacceptably long. I contacted the editors multiple times during this process, and each time I was given very little information as to why the review was delayed. I'm hesitant to submit here again; however, I've reviewed for this journal and seen a very short turnaround, on the order of 12 weeks.
Applied Energy 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Journal of GLBT Family Studies 2.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I had a very positive experience publishing with this journal - feedback was prompt and clear, and everyone was quite congenial in their communication with me. I would absolutely publish with them again.
Child Abuse and Neglect 17.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Child Abuse and Neglect 11.3
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 11.6
weeks
36.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Review times could have been shorter but overall I was extremely satisfied with the process.
European Sociological Review 49.1
weeks
49.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The content of the reviews was adequate, but our contribution took nearly one year to review.
Journal of Applied Physics 17.4
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Thermochimica Acta 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 13.0
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4.7
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was professional, efficient and handled very well. The editor works with you to improve the manuscript for publication.
Nature Genetics n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Relatively fast decision
Ecography 14.9
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The review was handled badly because I had to make multiple revisions, yet on every review the decision was 'minor revisions'. Even after very positive reviews and a 'minor revision' decision the manuscript was sent out to additional (new) reviewers. The changes I was asked to make after each review by the editor could have been made on the first round of review if they had all been brought up then. This led to much frustration and took up more time than necessary.
Elife 3.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Unlike promises made by other new journals, eLife stood by their promises. The review process was fast, fair and transparent. This was by far the best review experience I have ever had, and that for a journal that has ambitions to rival the best. If you have a great paper, forget about PNAS or Nature Comm, send it to eLife!
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 4.3
weeks
4.8
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Future Medicinal Chemistry 2.9
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: This was an invited article. It had 3 favourable referee reviews and one grumpy one (who obviously disagreed with our views - see also http://dbkgroup.org/on-scientific-censorship-and-bitchiness/), and it was sent to this person who inevitably dug their heels in despite a detailed rebuttal. I sent a further rebuttal which eventually was looked at by 'senior editors' who clearly did not bother to read the detailed arguments at all - some of their comments were wrong. Consequently I consider this a joke journal and shan't be sending anything to them again, nor likely any of this stable's output. The ability of editors to censor science is disgusting (see above blog link). Authors put their names to papers; if stuff is wrong it will be pointed out, to authors' detriment. These editors hid under a cloak of anonymity, despite my request that they should identify themselves if they were going to have an intellectual argument. Clearly they were not interested in that, as the only communications I got were from the Office.
Systematic Reviews 6.9
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: A fast, fair and high quality review process.
Journal of the Economic Science Association n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 5.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Review process was very fast. Critical points of the referees were understood and summarized, decision was in line with reports.
Referees clearly put some work into their reviews and added substantial value to the manuscript for resubmission at another journal.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.7
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I chose the 'fast track' option that was available. This expedited the review process. The editor and the reviewers assessed my manuscript in a very efficient and yet thorough manner. The communication was all very clear throughout the process.
The Economic Journal n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was rejected in its present form after significant criticism from the reviewers. The reviewers were however very thorough and provided very useful feedback. The journal also welcomed a new submission on the topic once all the issues were solved.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 12.3
weeks
19.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The paper was accepted after two rounds of reviews. The reviews were thorough and very good. The communication with the editor was excellent.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 7.0
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent process with amazingly thorough reviews. Very impressed.
PLoS Genetics 2.5
weeks
3.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very quick and efficient. The reviewer's suggestions improved the quality of the manuscript immensely.
Theory and Decision n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes n/a n/a 33.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)