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
European Journal of Ecology 3.0 wks 4.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Fast review process, very fair reviews and comments from the editor, no page charges, high visibility (open access) - I strongly recommend submissions to this journal.
Social Science Quarterly Drawn back before first editorial decision after 286 days Drawn back
Motivation: The editor failed to find reviewers for this paper. This is quite different from my previous experience with the same journal (and editor), and odd given that the journal recently published an article on a similar topic, and other journals where we tried before did not have this problem. For various reasons we thought that SSQ would be most suited to reach the audience we targeted with this paper, but it did not happen.
Journal of Clinical Nursing 34.7 wks n/a n/a 4 4 (very good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The editor replied exactly as:
Thank you for submitting your paper to the Journal of Clinical Nursing. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to the design and submission of your article.

Unfortunately, after careful consideration and thorough review, we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in our journal. We are sorry to disappoint you on this occasion, however, we think your paper could be a candidate for potential publication in Nursing Open, a peer-reviewed, open access journal providing rapid publication of high-quality research on all aspects of nursing and midwifery practice, research, education and policy.

To learn more about Nursing Open, please go to Nursing Open aims to provide feedback within 5 weeks of submission.

If you would like to accept or decline to transfer your manuscript to Nursing Open, please click the appropriate link below:

Accept transfer:
*** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. ***
My points: 1. Review comments were favourable, thus I did not see any reason why to reject the MS.
2. A recommended journal Nursing Open require payments (2,000 USD) for publication. My opinion is that JCN makes their own business by rejecting papers and asking money from disappointed authors. Of course, I disagreed with this possibility and I do not recommend any submissions to this journal.
Afro-Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting 46.0 wks 54.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the quality of peer-review is good. After submitted and passed the editorial screening, the manuscript was immediately sent to external reviewers. The online submission system clearly identified the progress of the paper, and the editor responses for the inquiry are also quite fast. The only problem was probably the reviewers' delay to send the review back to editors, and it might be case-specific.
Harvard Theological Review n/a n/a 6.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editorial assistant informed me that the editors deemed the article 'too technical' and hence more suited for a more 'specialised' journal. In general, this is a perfectly understandable explanation—provided, of course, that the statement can be backed up by the journal's track record, consistency, let alone recent publishing history. Even a cursory look through HTR volumes published last five years one may note several much more 'technical' articles, such that the editors' decision not to submit the paper to further peer-review process seems to have been done on a whim and hence unscientific.
Water Research 8.0 wks n/a n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Review process was fast, and the comments from reviewers were reasonable.
Paleobiology 12.1 wks 13.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The first review process was quite long, due to one of the external reviewers being very late in his reply.
The editor was very understanding and quick to react.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 9.6 wks 9.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Review process was good at keeping us informed and editor comments were helpful. The journal provided a summary of reviewer comments rather than the raw comments which was helpful to know what the editor found important but I would also like to have seen the original reviewer comments. Response time was very good. I was not aware that they required a reviewer recommendation from countries other than any author affiliated countries, so that could be clarified in their system.
Biocontrol Science and Technology 2.7 wks 13.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Water Science and Technology 7.0 wks 14.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Nature Nanotechnology n/a n/a 25.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The time it took for an immediate rejection without review (3.6 weeks) seems unreasonably long.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Chemosphere 5.1 wks 10.1 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.6 wks 10.4 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Given that Christmas and New Year comprised the initial review period, and four reviewers provided comments, the initial review was timely. The comments from one reviewer were extensive, but they did help to improve the manuscript.
Economics Bulletin 5.1 wks n/a n/a 1 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: Article was handled professionally and promptly, but rejection was based on a reviewer report that showed lack of familiarity with the article's subject.
Journal of Academic Librarianship n/a n/a 98.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My only objective to the whole experience is that the rejection by the editor should be much faster, and not take 4 months!
Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine 16.3 wks 16.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was reasonably fast. in particular the decision was super fast after we re-submitted the revision
Psychology, Health and Medicine 14.4 wks 14.7 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: very quick review process and very quick decision following resubmission
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 20.1 wks 28.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were constructive and useful and I really like the journal. My only wish was that the initial review process would be a lot quicker. It took 20 weeks to hear back after the first submission. This is for graduate students and postdocs too long, and not desirable for those for whom publication pressure is not that high either.
Angewandte Chemie 3.7 wks n/a n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
DNA Research 3.6 wks 11.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Ethology 22.9 wks 36.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 10.8 wks n/a n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers' feedback was much delayed and the follow-up and feedback from the editorial manager's part was very slow and poor
Industrial Management and Data Systems n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Exposure and Health n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: With referring to the editor's comment, I would like to add that we have cited at least two papers on the same exact topic and "site specific" from the same country published by this journal a year before.
Elife n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of International Management n/a n/a 0.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Philosophy 30.4 wks n/a n/a 1 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Seven months wait for one unnecessarily mean and obnoxious review. At least the editor picked a referee who appeared somewhat competent in the subject matter. Do not send to this journal.
ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering 4.1 wks 9.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was surprisingly smooth, with a quick turnaround time. However, upon resubmitting the paper with major revisions, two of the three reviewers recommended immediate publication. One of the reviewers was till unhappy with the manuscript and did not have any real concrete suggestions or comments to improve the manuscript. He/She wanted us to redo some experiments that had already been published -- which involved cell cultures of 21 days, and hence the delay in the second resubmission. Other than this issue, we were satisfied with the review process.
Journal of Management and Organization 20.0 wks n/a n/a 1 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4.4 wks 9.1 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Noûs 11.0 wks 18.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The journal handled my manuscript quickly and sent it to very helpful referees.
European Management Journal 15.4 wks 27.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27.9 wks 28.9 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Waiting for the first response was a bit long in my opinion (27.9 weeks) and there was only one reviewer. Review process after that point was very quick. Review was not very detailed (minor revision), but addressed some important points of the manuscript.
Scientific Reports 4.7 wks 15.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The reviews was professional, good and fair. However the editorial process is extremely slow and ineffective. First, the editorial office lost a contact with handling editor and it took them more then 2 months to re-assign the manuscript to another editor, Second, in any stage of the submission the manuscript is going through "quality check", which take at least a week. Third, the production of accepted manuscript is extremely slow as well. It took more than two weeks and additional communication with the production staff to get invoice and the proof of the manuscript.
GigaScience 4.9 wks n/a n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer selection was poor, reviews were unconstructive and low quality, editorial input was minimal and defered to poor quality reviews.
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 4.6 wks 5.3 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the G3 review process was fast and fair. Our manuscript was properly evaluated on the work submitted both both the reviewers and editor.
Philosophical Quarterly n/a n/a 20.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Economics and Philosophy 8.7 wks n/a n/a 2 1 (bad) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: Two referee comments within a reasonable time frame. Yet the referees were obviously both economists who (I) didn't competently engage at all with the philosophical substance of my paper and (ii) were hyper-critical of the experimental component of my paper (it was an X-phi paper). I've since been able to place this paper in a great journal, but be warned, if you're trying to publish a piece that involves formalism or an experiment the editors seem to hold you to the same standard practicing economists publishing in top econ journals are held too. This is ridiculous, as I've read lots of very bad philosophical pieces written by economists in this journal. Instead, I'd suggest you publish in PPE, Philosophy of Science or BJPS. They find reasonable reviewers for formal work.
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 4.7 wks n/a n/a 3 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: Absolutely unprofessional. The editor misplaced (I was not aware this was even possible) our manuscript and sent previous versions of the manuscript to the reviewers. The whole review process (the almost 8 months!) were confusing and the editors were not reachable at any point.