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
Mathematische Annalen n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology 5.9 wks 8.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Takes a bit of time from submission to allocation of manuscript number but very quick review and response
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18.4 wks 26.3 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: Review process took too long. Second round was not needed. Editor should have been able to make decision with our response to the first round.
Antiquity 13.3 wks 13.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Review process was relatively quick (although it missed the editor's target of 2 months by 50%). Once the article was accepted it awaited publication for another 11 months.
Biomaterials 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer comments were pertinent, well-documented and demonstrated good knowledge of the field.
PLoS ONE 9.4 wks 9.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer critiques were extensive and well-documented. Reviewer feedback was useful in significantly revising and restructuring our manuscript before resubmission elsewhere.
Animal Behaviour 4.3 wks 8.3 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Hormones and Behavior n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Animal Ecology 6.6 wks 6.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Ecology n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computers in Biology and Medicine 4.1 wks 4.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Quick reviewing process with nice suggestions of the reviewers in the meantime that have contributed to improve final quality of the work
Aquaculture 2.9 wks 2.9 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 4 (very good) Rejected
Clinical Interventions in Aging 3.6 wks 4.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Gait and Posture 16.0 wks 22.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Drawn back
Journal of Hazardous Materials 12.6 wks 12.7 wks n/a 0 n/a 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Minor corrections to the typesetting of equations took over one month for the publishers to correct. Response to questions about article status very slow. The stated expected turnaround of 4 months for peer review seems overly long - I received a request from the same journal to review an article within 3 weeks.
Antiviral Research 4.6 wks 9.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers suggested nice comments.
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 (good) Accepted (im.)
Diabetologia 4.7 wks 12.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Endocrinology 5.6 wks 9.6 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Very nice journal regarding choosing reviewers and their comments.
Geographical Research 22.7 wks 24.6 wks n/a 4 5 (excellent) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: I made significant changes to my original manuscript in response to comments from three peer reviewers (all supportive of my paper - recommending minor revisions to the structure and some additional references) and Special Issue editors (who were not supportive of my paper). The Special Issue editors did not accept my revised manuscript. However, the editor of the journal did like the paper so he recommended some further changes and asked that I consider resubmitting. I made these changes and resubmitted, wherein it was sent to new reviewers. These reviewers were also supportive of the paper, but suggested further extensive changes, many of which contradicted suggested changes from the first round of reviews and comments from the editor. Final result was the drafting of three (very different) versions of the same paper, all receiving different feedback. I gave up at this point. I was very dissatisfied with this process.
Energy Research and Social Science 9.6 wks 24.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient review process. The only higher ranking energy journal I have written for where I believe the editors take a sincere interest in the papers that are accepted for publication.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 18.4 wks 38.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Receiving reviews was very slow. However, the editorial team was efficient in providing feedback. The review comments (3 reviewers) were all high quality and contributed to an increase in the quality of the paper.
Studies in Higher Education n/a n/a 19.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was rejected for being out of scope. Very friendly and positive response received from editor. Very prompt response.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 3.6 wks 4.6 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient journal. Clear communications. Peer review comments were brief and added value.
Australian Journal of Public Administration 19.4 wks 24.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The submission was a short commentary paper. I believe the review process should have been shorter considering this.
Renewable Energy 4.4 wks 4.4 wks n/a 0 n/a 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: My paper was submitted as part of a Special Issue. I did not receive any peer review feedback.
Energy Policy 9.7 wks 11.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Thorough peer review comments received from both reviewers. Publication process was efficient.
World Development n/a n/a 18.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the European Ceramic Society 3.7 wks 4.4 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
PLoS Computational Biology Drawn back before first editorial decision after 66 days Drawn back
Journal of Public Health 7.0 wks 7.0 wks n/a 1 1 (bad) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Note that this review is about OUP's Journal of Public Health, not about the Springer journal of the same name. Overall a good experience, fast and concise reviews.
American Journal of Public Health n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast decision based on three-line review by the editors. Would submit there again anytime.
Governance n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It was fast but lacks relevant contributions
Conservation Letters 7.7 wks 7.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Two months was a good response time to have completed external review, especially since we submitted at the beginning of the holiday season in the US. While our paper was rejected the two reviews were thoughtful, specific, and thorough, and we were able to use those comments to substantially improve the paper before submitting it elsewhere. I felt that the recommendation to reject our paper was justified by the quality of the reviews provided.
Biodiversity and Conservation n/a n/a 13.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor in chief informed me that he turns down ~70% of submissions without peer review (after he reads them), and that my paper was not a tight enough fit for their primary audience of biodiversity scientists. I hoped it could work based on a few other papers similar to me published in the journal, but of course I respect the prerogative of the editor and appreciated the fast rejection.
Ecology and Society n/a n/a 12.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I understand the issue of fit and appreciated the speedy rejection.
Journal of Affective Disorders 10.6 wks 20.3 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Revista de Estudos Criminais 24.3 wks 24.3 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process was sufficiently informed and transparent, but it takes too long and the quality of the review reports was poor (but, considering the practice of Brazilian law journals, at least they were sent to me). There was no editorial control or consolidation of the peer reports. There was no editorial control on the corrections made in the article after the peer review. The editor was kind and replies the emails and questions. An exemplar of the printed journal was sent to me.
Frontiers in Microbiology 2.9 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Frontiers in Pharmacology 4.3 wks 5.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted