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
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 10.4
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Urban Education 24.7
weeks
24.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I feel the reviewing process took way too long and although both reviewers were very enthousiastic about my manuscript, since they pointed out a lot of positive points and had only minor remarks, my manuscript was just bluntly rejected without offering me the opportunity to revise it. Although I think both reviewers were in favour of doing this (as they mentioned suggestions for revision in their comments).
Science Translational Medicine n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Chemical Biology 6.1
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
World Development 15.3
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Journal of Medical Ethics n/a n/a 24.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Economics Letters 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and efficient.
Psychiatry Research 20.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Providing a single reviewer opinion in 4.5 months seems to me highly inefficient. Otherwise the content of the review was fair.
Semantics and Pragmatics 16.0
weeks
50.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were of high quality and always led to a significant improvement of the article. The editorial work was likewise excellent and very careful. The editors cared about the contents a lot, they didn't just function as "translators" of the reviewers' views.
Child Abuse Review 20.4
weeks
31.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
British Journal of Political Science n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 23.0
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: There were quite a few changes required from the editors, but all reasonable and straight forward to implement.
Swiss Political Science Review 2.6
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: A very speedy and efficient process.
Population, Space and Place n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Demography 13.4
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
American Sociological Review 15.1
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Population and Development Review n/a n/a 33.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Sociological Review 35.6
weeks
45.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The first round was lengthy but the subsequent rounds were fast and efficient.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 12.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Two reviewers either did not understand the paper or were intentionally blocking it.
Social Science Research 14.1
weeks
26.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: During the review process, the editor changed. The first editor was quite enthusiastic about the paper (revise and resubmit). But the new editor not so much (reject in the second round).
"Not liking the paper" is a fair judgement, but it should not be changed during the review process...
Political Studies 17.1
weeks
29.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer liked the paper, the other one did not. That's always a difficult starting point, but we changed the paper substantially to take on board the second reviewer. After the revisions, the second reviewer still didn't like it and added new criticisms including many that are blatently wrong. Sadly the editor didn't pick up any of this. Given that the journal doesn't do multiple rounds of revisions, that's it.
American Journal of Political Science n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Desk rejection, but very fast (1 day) and with reasons clearly stated and a range of alternative outlets suggested.
Journal of Marriage and Family 14.4
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
De Economist 1.0
weeks
1.3
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: This was for a special issue, which might explain the quick review and decision.
Political Analysis n/a n/a 40.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They suggested LSQ as a journal with a more substantive (rather than methodological) focus.
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Health and Place n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Advances in Mathematics 43.7
weeks
43.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: There were two reports, one positive, one negative. I quote the negative report below:

"I took a detailed look at the paper. I find it rather technical. [15-words summary of the paper deleted.] Although the authors develop some new methods to do so, I think it is not appropriate for the Advances of Mathematics."

This is not a report, it is - at most - a quick opinion. One can reject a paper because it doesn't fit into the scope of a journal, or because one considers it not to be good enough for the journal, one can even reject it for being too "technical" for a general math journal
(although this is really a matter of taste - virtually all non-trivial math papers are technical), but it should not take 10 months to do so. By acting in this way, the editorial board "burned" my paper. Too much time had passed, I started giving talks on the results,
the preprint had been cited half a dozen times, there was not enough time to send it to another high end journal with an equally long decision time, with the risk to get it again "almost published" (one report, much longer than the one quoted, was after all positive), i.e. rejected the result would then never appear in print at all.
Community Ecology 15.6
weeks
15.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewing process takes too much times...
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks Accepted (im.)
Acta Politica 8.6
weeks
30.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: very slow in communicating about acceptance after resubmission
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 33 days Drawn back
Motivation: The manuscript kept going back and forth between the Editor and us, each time requesting clarifications, many of which were already given in past iterations. We finally decided enough was enough.
European Journal of Higher Education 12.0
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Adequate review process in the first round, but after revision in accordance with the reviewers' requests, the manuscript length was increased, and the editor thus requested that significant cuts be made which was burdensome and did not make the manuscript better. Word limits seem more important than quality.
Higher Education Policy 7.9
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Drawn back
Studies in Higher Education 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Revista de Educacion 15.3
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: They review process took too long for such a poor report.
There is no option to reply to the editor or the reviewers.
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.