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
Energy and Buildings 73.8 wks 73.8 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: Review process took very long time.
Fuel Processing Technology 4.3 wks 4.3 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Renewable Energy 30.4 wks 39.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Energy Efficiency 52.1 wks 82.5 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 17.4 wks 30.4 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 6.9 wks 10.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: This was faster than previous experiences with JEMS, and we were given a chance to revise the paper despite one rather critical reviewer. The work we put into the revision paid out, though.
Physics Letters A 9.4 wks n/a n/a 1 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Theoretical papers are sent to referees who are experts in experiment and vice versa. Referee reports are not logical with respect to the content of the manuscript and mostly motivated by the own ideas of the referees.
Physics Letters A 10.0 wks n/a n/a 1 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Manuscripts are sent to non-expert reviewers.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17.4 wks n/a n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were very short (97 words together), very general (e.g. #1: "It is very descriptive and low in interest for the audience"; #2: "There is little scientific aspect in the paper") and not supported with any clear reference to the text. If I would not have been a seasoned author, for example a PhD candidate, I would have been disincentivized.
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Editor suggested, in a relevant way, a different kind of journal.
Reports on Mathematical Physics 12.7 wks 14.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Acta Physica Polonica, B 10.9 wks 14.7 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Lithuanian Mathematical Journal 14.3 wks 38.7 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Few-Body Systems 6.3 wks 8.9 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Food Control 13.0 wks 14.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers brought out the salient information and critique that made the paper stand out
Journal of Mathematical Physics 9.1 wks 9.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Journal of European Social Policy 17.4 wks 45.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was very good. The review process has improved my paper a lot. However, in may opinion, the review process could be a little bit faster.
Lancet Oncology 3.0 wks 5.0 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Sometime review comments are not improving quality of paper and some questions are really ridiculous
Science n/a 2.4 wks n/a n/a n/a 5 (excellent) Accepted (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems n/a 29.9 wks n/a n/a n/a 5 (excellent) Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The review process of this journal is quiet fast.
Facilities 17.4 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Accepted
Journal of Property Investment and Finance n/a 0.0 wks n/a n/a n/a 3 (good) Accepted (im.)
Journal of Antibiotics 13.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: N/A
Journal of Hydrology 34.7 wks n/a n/a 3 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: Very inefficient editorial handling. It took over 4 months for the Editor to realise that one of the reviewers had not provided the review and another 2 months for them to find another reviewer. Never replied to emails.
Chemical Geology 4.3 wks 6.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Excellent, timely editorial handling. Very constructive reviews from experts in the field.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2.7 wks 3.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Microbial Pathogenesis 8.9 wks 8.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
European Security 6.4 wks n/a n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Drawn back
Motivation: The first round of revisions really improved the paper. This was enough to satisfy reviewer 1, but insufficient for reviewer 2. The critique of the latter was quite external. Unfortunately the reviewer sided with reviewer 2.
European Journal of Agronomy 3.9 wks 4.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Obesity Reviews 3.0 wks 7.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Highly professional and serious editor and reviewers. Good and useful evaluation by reviewers. I recommend publishing in the journal.
Social Indicators Research 13.0 wks 17.4 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Electric Power Systems Research 15.2 wks 16.2 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4.0 wks 8.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The whole review process was quick, relevant and objective
Political Analysis 31.9 wks 31.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Child Development 13.0 wks 17.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Current Issues in Tourism 6.0 wks 8.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Current Issues in Tourism 8.7 wks 12.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
PS: Political Science and Politics 31.9 wks 31.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were good, but whole process took considerable time.
PS: Political Science and Politics 30.0 wks n/a n/a 1 2 (moderate) 1 (bad) Rejected
PLoS ONE 8.7 wks 14.0 wks n/a 4 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted