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
Philosophy of Science 8.7 wks 13.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Comments from three (reasonable) referees which motivated helpful changes to the paper.
Philosophy of Science 8.7 wks 11.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 20.3 wks 20.3 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Very slow review process but the reviewers' comments were fair and constructive.
Tectonophysics 13.7 wks 24.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Accepted
Marine and Petroleum Geology 34.7 wks 35.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Structural Geology 7.0 wks 9.6 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Marine Geology 21.7 wks 24.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Asian Journal of Control 10.1 wks 18.1 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: This journal was fast and responsive. Also, I felt that reviewers are very familiar with the subject.
Novum Testamentum 11.3 wks 11.3 wks n/a 0 n/a 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The journal provided me with no external review and gave no specific reasons for rejecting my manuscripts. I suspect that what I received was a generic paragraph sent to all the author whose article suffered the same fate as mine:

'I regret to inform you that the editorial board did not accept your manuscript for publication in Novum Testamentum.

I wish you all the best in your academic endeavours.

Thank you for having considered Novum Testamentum for publication of your research.

Yours sincerely,'
Philosophy and Public Affairs n/a n/a 55.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 8.9 wks 9.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Quick and fair review
Journal of Engineering Design n/a n/a 10.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biogeochemistry 7.7 wks 18.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Soil Biology and Biochemistry 9.4 wks 18.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Neuroscience 3.3 wks 7.3 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: This was the worst publication experience in my career.
Journal of Linguistics 26.7 wks 42.4 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Good quality reviews, though unfortunately quite slow (typical for linguistics journals). One of the reviewers didn't really understand the point of the paper but the two others were quite good, critical and helpful. Time until final decision took a bit long again.
British Journal of Radiology 6.5 wks 7.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast review process, especially quick acceptence after revision.
Good quality of the reviewer comments.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology n/a n/a 31.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 18.4 wks 18.4 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were detailed but focused principally on style and were contradictory ("thesis should be emphasized more at the outset" / "thesis presented too bluntly... can take more time to develop"), so they did not help in developing the essay.
Annali di Storia dell'Esegesi 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The review was detailed and helped by pointing to a missed source on the subject. The editor was quick to respond to questions and the process went very smoothly.
Neotestamentica 17.4 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were detailed and helped improve the article on several points. The process went very smoothly even with a change of editors mid-process.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 22.6 wks 22.6 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Although the initial review took a while, the editor was quick to communicate throughout the process, the reviewers were clear about the positive aspects of the article and what needed some clarification, and the process went very smoothly.
Review of Scientific Instruments 5.0 wks 5.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: A little slow with reviews, but overall a good process. This journal also provides detailed status updates on their author portal so you always know what stage it is at.
Robotica n/a n/a 61.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 9.9 wks 9.9 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: I perceived the quality of the review as disappointing. To my opinion, the overall conclusions were merely based on perceptions/opinions about the content and context instead of a proper understanding of both. Several comments on the content were incorrect but stated as facts. Other comments I perceived as outside the purpose and scope of the paper. Some comments left the question: “Did the reviewer really read this article or only parts of it?” One reviewer was on the edge of being rude and offensive without giving a proper motivation. There may be valid reasons to reject a paper, but then, be relevant, precise and constructive. The quality of the review is by far not in proportion to the effort that was put into this work. It is not all bad. There are some valuable and constructive comments which I am grateful for. And I hold myself fully responsible for how others perceive my work.
Marine Biodiversity 30.4 wks 69.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: Of the two papers I've had published with this journal so far, this first one was to date among the longest and most challenging review processes. The length of time overall may appear understandable given the 3 reviews that had to be undertaken. However, receiving the first review 7 months after initial submission is in my opinion of very low caliber. Followed by a further 7 months and then 1.5 months for the other reviews, it is my opinion that no review process should take this long, particularly if the paper was of fairly standard length.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Philosophical Logic 12.6 wks 18.6 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Comments were detailed and helpful. Everything was handled promptly.
Mind 12.0 wks 19.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Nature Methods n/a n/a 0.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Synthese 26.0 wks 34.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Health Promotion International 14.9 wks 14.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Business and Information Systems Engineering 16.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: My paper theme and journal's aim and scope do not have a close match. However, editor took it forward for review, as my paper theme can contribute to the body of knowledge that journal focuses on. The editor followed the reviewer's comments and suggested me to submit by formalizing a model that extends government and software engineering paradigms. Moreover, the reviewers could not differentiate between capability and capacity indicating that they could not follow my paper. They did not understand the model used in my paper and felt that my paper is focusing only on communication between and among projects. Given the context in which my paper has been taken forward for review a careful selection of reviewers could have helped me in getting meaningful comments to further improve the paper.
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly 0.6 wks 15.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Cancer Treatment Reviews 5.9 wks 6.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Applied Clay Science 3.0 wks 3.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Clay and Clay Minerals 21.4 wks 24.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
International Journal of Communication 4.9 wks 9.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
International Communication Gazette 28.4 wks 28.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: more than 6 months until first decision (only after reminding the editors)
Communication & Sport 2.0 wks 2.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted