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
NeuroImage 6.9 wks 6.9 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Neuroimage (NI) is arguably the top journal in the area of Neuroimaging. Although my proposed methodology was appreciated, the writing style was suggested for further improvement. I didn't see any strong negative comments from the reviewers. I guess NI is focused on maintaining a very high rejection rate.
Arthritis and Rheumatology 13.6 wks 14.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The rejection letter to the resubmitted manuscript, which was revised according to reviewer comments after the first round of peer review, stated that the subject matter was not of interest to the broader readership of the journal.This being the case, it would have been preferable if the manuscript had been rejected immediately after first being submitted to the journal which would have saved us at least 6 months. Now we have to begin the process of submission again with another journal.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 18.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability n/a n/a 54.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Outlook on Agriculture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 (moderate) Accepted (im.)
Annales Henri Poincare n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Development Policy Review 16.3 wks 36.9 wks n/a 1 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Global Food Security 13.7 wks 13.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Research Policy 22.6 wks 22.6 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: First round of reviews took 6 months. Reviews were of somewhat OK quality, pointing towards major revisions. Editor did not bother to comment or synthesize reviews, but rejected with a one-line comment.
Science 6.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The overall process was relatively fast. The manuscript was assigned to three different referees, nevertheless their background on the topic studied in the manuscript was apparently poor and resulted in several naive comments. I do not know if the journal's policy, regarding its broad readership, includes inviting not specialized reviewers, however, we finally got only a minimal feedback, despite the three different reports we received. The manuscript was rejected because the reviews were "not positive enough". We ended up surprised, not by the rejection per se, but by the unexpectedly low quality of the reviews.
PLoS ONE 9.6 wks 16.3 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Structural Control and Health Monitoring 17.3 wks 27.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Molecular Biology 5.7 wks 7.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 22.1 wks 22.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Sound and Vibration 12.0 wks 12.1 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Structural Safety 32.9 wks 33.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Structural Safety 23.7 wks 23.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Structural Safety 25.6 wks 37.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The review reports were candid and constructive. The quality of the manuscript definitely improved from the initial submission. It is worth the wait!
Forest Policy and Economics n/a n/a 200.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected by the Editorial Board after almost 7 months. During this period I kindly asked to have some communication by the Editor but I never had any reply. According to the Journal web site, the manuscript was under review, but the communication by the Editor in Chief simply said that “the Editorial Board has evaluated the manuscript unacceptable for publication in our journal”. No additional comment or reason was provided or available on the website.
Central European Journal of Public Health 8.7 wks 17.4 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Very good communication with the Editor. Also, the Editor gives details from the beginning about the period necessary for reviewing the manuscript and kept it. It offers a large variety of possibilities for the topics. A little bit too long to wait for answers from the reviewers, but communication with the Editor compensates this problem.
Superlattices and Microstructures n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 (excellent) Accepted (im.)
International Journal of Environment and Waste Management 23.7 wks 42.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: Too much long review process. More than an year to see the paper published.
BMC Medical Research Methodology 5.3 wks 7.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Extremely rapid. Valuable comments.
Journal of Cancer Survivorship n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Plant Physiology 2.7 wks 5.1 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Asian Journal of Control 0.9 wks 5.2 wks n/a 0 n/a 4 (very good) Accepted
Nature Communications 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 3 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The editor seemed to have had little bagage to either select appropriate reviewers, or evaluate the quality of the reviews. The whole process took ages (of which nearly a month just to decide whether to send out for review). Over a month after formally going into review a former colleague of mine (one with whom I have published previously) was asked to review the manuscript. One single Google action by the editor would have made it clear that this is not an appropriate request given our previous ties. It seems to me that the only reason my colleague got this request was because he has a study in revision with Nature Communications so that his name was in their system. Naturally he reclined and apparently a different reviewer was invited. The reviews I ended up getting were of poor quality, attacking points that were very explicitly controlled for in the study. I did not read a single point of valid criticism by any of the reviewers. I've decided taking my business elsewhere, I will not be submitting with Nature Communications again, the turnaround time for a high impact journal is huge (even though they pride themselves on being fast), and the editor does not seem up to speed in our field (Cognitive Neuroscience).
Applied Energy 6.1 wks 6.1 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Paper submission management system is fast and effective.
Discourse Processes 10.6 wks 10.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Supportive Care in Cancer n/a n/a 23.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 4.6 wks 15.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Quick feedback from editor and reviewers, except for the final decision.
Relevant comments in general
Biometrical Journal 21.7 wks 29.3 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Good reviews in reasonable delay
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 17.0 wks 17.0 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The paper was sent to peer-review and the process took more than 3 months. One of the reviewers provided a sustained feedback which revealed an attentive reading of our paper, highlighting many flaws which we were able to correct thanks to him/her and prepare the paper for further submission to another journal. The second reviewer however was sarcastic and very condescending. He/She provided a two line review stating that the paper had a major methodological flaw which made it unworthy of further comments. When submitting a paper to peer review in a top journal, we expect to get a report based on a objective reading of the paper and not on reviewer's "methodological ideologies". Through the provided report, it was obvious that the reviewer in question did not even read the paper thoroughly and just decided it was unworthy of even considering it.
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 8.9 wks 10.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were good, but it was the work of the very knowledgeable and capable editorial board that really helped improving this manuscript during the review process. The editors managed to keep the balance between the opinions of the reviewers and our intentions as authors, and worked actively to make the manuscript fit for publication.
Journal of Law and Courts 10.0 wks 10.0 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 4 (very good) Rejected
European Journal of Political Research 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Comparative Political Studies 26.0 wks 26.0 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Slow, editor comments suggested cursory reading of reviewers.
British Journal of Political Science 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 4 (very good) Rejected
Frontiers in Microbiology 9.3 wks 11.7 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Peasant Studies n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor-in-chief sent us a very polite rejection email, highlighting why the article was not a good fit for JPS. He also suggested submitting another journal to which to submit, an unusually helpful thing for an EiC to do. Definitely the best desk rejection there could be.