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
Knowledge and Information Systems 10.3 wks 10.3 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
FEBS Open Bio 5.1 wks 11.7 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: There was a long wait just for one reviewer to look over the revisions. Many emails had to be sent to the editorial office in order to get status updates.
Ecological Indicators 12.0 wks 20.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was okay, but after acceptance something went wrong technically with the Elsevier system, and the last version of my article was lost in cyberspace. It took me many phonecalls (to India) and e-mails with the publisher's office to set it straight.
Frontiers in Psychology 4.1 wks 4.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Very fast editorial processing. The editor was very competent and helpful.
Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 13.3 wks 13.3 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers comments were good and relevant, but no clear reason was given for the rejection, as the shortcomings mentioned would have been easy to fix.
International Journal of Industrial Organization n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
ACS Nano n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The rejection by editor was extremel fast and the rejection letter was nice - the editor commented that the manuscript is well prepared and interesting, but probably too niche for the wide readership of ACS Nano.
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 5.0 wks 5.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The process was satisfactory in practically all ways; our only major issue with the ACS system is that it is quite prone to browser errors and after the manuscript has been submitted, the only status visible is "Submitted to Editorial Office" independent of whether it is being assessed by the editor or the reviewers.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 14.7 wks 15.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: JMIR offers a rigorous, efficient and fair review process. The quality of the comments and criticisms from both reviewers was excellent. The reviewers offered constructive feedback, which helped us to improve the paper.
Addiction Biology 9.6 wks 9.6 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers did not read the paper properly and their comments were too general. One reviewer could not open a figure due to technical problems but instead of asking the editorial office he adressed this issue as one reason to reject the manuscript. The other reviewer could not find the task description in the figure legends. I prefer a desk reject instead of waiting two months for such unprofessional comments.
Nature Geoscience n/a n/a 8.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor copy/pasted a line from summary in conciliatory decision letter. Suggested we publish in Nature Communications (which has $6K article processing fee).
Geologica Carpathica 13.0 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Professional handling of manuscript, all questions were answered soon.
Limnology and Oceanography 17.0 wks 21.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: I did not hear back from the journal for over a month after the initial submission, so I wrote to find out if it was being sent to review or not. They informed me that it had been sent out for review, but it would have been nice if they would have told me that instead of having to seek out that information. Then it took over 4 months to receive the outcome of the first review, which I find excessive. The worst though is that since it was accepted I waited over 2 months for a first proof, which was full of errors, I requested a second proof be sent, which took 3 weeks and was again full of errors, some of which were the same as the previous proof... it is still yet to be published almost 4 months after accepting it and will now be pushed back to the May issue (6 months from accepted date).
Journal of Medical Internet Research 9.0 wks 9.1 wks n/a 4 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I appreciated getting thoughtful feedback from four reviewers.
Target 22.0 wks 26.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: A very smooth and timely process, with constructive criticism given by the reviewers.
China Economic Review 8.7 wks 10.7 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
BMC Genomics 10.7 wks 12.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast. Good manuscript tracking system. The editor was kind.
Nature n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor pushed manuscript to subjournal; no feedback on manuscript.
Bioinformatics 5.1 wks 7.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 8.3 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I am a great fan of how quickly everything was handled by ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. My only beef with the ACS system is that there is no feedback on whether your manuscript is still with the editor or under review.
International Journal of Hindu Studies n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Psychological Medicine 7.6 wks 19.0 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: A thoroughly disheartening and shambolic process. First set of reviews: 2 positive, 1 negative. Response of editor: "One of the referees had very major criticisms of your paper. If you believe you can fully address the deficiencies then we would be willing to see a radically revised version. However I should advise you that we would send it back to the same referee. You might therefore want to think carefully whether you wish to do this or consider another journal." We thought carefully, but decided to resubmit because the reviewer had misunderstood some basic methodological details and also made erroneous comments about the statistical analyses. So, of course we could address his/her petty concerns!
In addition to the detailed response to the reviewer, we sent a letter to the editor explaining that we were concerned about possible bias and the various errors s/he had made, providing detailed and blunter rebuttals than would have been sensible to put in the 'response to reviewers' document. The editor is after all an elder statesman of psychiatry, and would obviously make a wise and considered judgement? So we waited for about 2 months and eventually were told the review (singular) had been received and that a decision was imminent. A further two weeks went by and still no word. When we enquired, we were then told that the paper had been sent out for review AGAIN. We thought this was a good sign, believing that the negative reviewer's views must have remained unchanged after the revision and that the sage editor had decided that the fairest course of action was to get a fourth/fifth opinion. And then, two days after that we were told that the paper was rejected (i.e. before the re-re-review). We were only sent the negative reviewer's second set of comments (which predictably contained a series of additional concerns).
It is of course possible that we were viewing our work through rose tinted glasses, seeing it as a major breakthrough in psychiatry (the two positive reviewers took a more modest view of our work, but commended it as important, nonetheless) and that the negative reviewer was right to criticise our work (and the editor right to reject it on the basis of that criticism). But it really concerns me that the editor was so willingly and credulously swayed by a reviewer whose comments, by any measure of pettiness, were trivial and/or based on a misunderstanding of the literature and statistical methods. My feeling was that our fate was sealed after the first reviews and the fairest thing would have been to definitively put us out of our misery at that stage. Instead we waited >5 months to receive a really ill considered decision.
Science n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: standard rejection: "The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal."
overall submission process quite pleasant (online information on status of submission etc)
NeuroImage 8.4 wks 8.4 wks n/a 4 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
Games and Economic Behavior 13.7 wks 13.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
International Journal of Epidemiology n/a n/a 34.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Review of Economics and Finance n/a n/a 8.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
World Development 27.3 wks 27.9 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: We received constructive comments which were easy to address. The editor was very prompt to accept the article. Overall I am very satisfied by World Development. This is the second time I have an article accepted and the overall process is constructive and relatively fast.
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 22.1 wks 22.1 wks n/a 0 n/a 1 (bad) Rejected
Journal of Insect Conservation 8.4 wks 11.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fair and the editorial staff moderated the reviews well.
Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations 13.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
The Translator 11.9 wks 23.4 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was good overall. The review I received was detailed and showed that the reviewer engaged with the article. The majority of suggestions were very useful and significantly improved my article, while just a few were misunderstandings.
Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 10.0 wks 19.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
PLoS ONE 7.0 wks 7.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: When a reviewer was delayed in uploading their comments, the journal reached out to me to share a status update, which I greatly appreciated. Appreciated relatively quick turnaround times.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 11.0 wks 14.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Editorial process was fast. Editor was careful and reasonable.
Child Abuse and Neglect 32.7 wks 33.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: The review process took too long because the journal could not find adequate reviewers. The reviewer comments were helpful but it appeared that they were not specialist reviewers either. The decision following re submission was very fast.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation n/a n/a 31.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took 1 month for this response: "The Journal receives many more manuscripts than it can publish and difficult decisions must be made on the basis of an article’s perceived priority. Your manuscript did not achieve a high enough ranking to be accepted."
Cell Proliferation 4.3 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 8.6 wks 8.6 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: 8.6 weeks for first review is too long. Especially if there are just 2 reviewers.
Ophthalmology 3.5 wks 3.5 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: I believe, that just as authors must fill out elaborate conflict of interest forms, journals should be forced to do the same. If they have new specialised journals that they are following a policy of redirecting all relevant manuscripts to, they should say so clearly, so authors can opt out of submission to that journal.