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
PLoS ONE 22.6
weeks
32.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Accepted
Motivation: Our paper was accepted, so my poor ratings are nothing to do with sour grapes. However, the editor did not seem especially well-informed in this subject area. While this can't be expected of a specialist journal, a massive enterprise such as PLoS One, with its legion of Editors, should be able to find a suitable editor (or to accept the Editor recommended by the authors). This caused difficulties because she did not challenge some of the frankly ridiculous comments/requests of one of the reviewers. Instead we had to make more and more changes (5 sets of revisions!), although to my mind the law of (exponential) diminishing returns was evident after the second revision. The Ed contented herself with (reading and then...?) following the requests from the reviewers for continual additional revisions. Eventually in complete exasperation, we challenged the reviewer to 'put up or shut up' and they finally conceded that they lacked unawareness of the literature. At that point I was very willing to withdraw the paper and send it elsewhere.
I also found the editor to be particularly thin skinned and frankly patronising, with her parting comment: "I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO ONE ISSUE (WHICH MAY BE OF IMPORTANCE FOR YOUR FUTURE COMMUNICATION WITH EDITORS): all my communication I did address to you (by your name), all your communication to me had been addressed to "[Dear] Editor". I would recommend you to call your future Editors by name. this is just a good communication style" (all caps in original). Now, I agree that it is a courtesy to an Editor to use their name and title, but it is difficult to take lessons about "good communication" from someone who waited until the 6th(!) decision to letter to inform us that her feelings had been hurt! We could have used her name if she pointed out this trivial oversight after letter 1. Moreover the nature of the decision letters (to amend according to the wishes of the reviewers) did nothing to dispel the idea that one was dealing with a nameless automaton. Anyway, no more PLoS submissions for me, I think!
Lancet Infectious Diseases n/a n/a 33.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Over 4 weeks is a long time to decide within the editorial team whether a manuscript is interesting enough for the jorunal or not. But, at least, we were offered a transfer of the manuscript to another Elsevier journal.
Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences 5.4
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was rather fast. The reviwers' questions were not difficult for us, yet they were useful and straight to the business.
Memory n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular Cell n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.4
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 22.0
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Noted some conficts of interest in the review process.
Also, errors introduced at multiple stages in the proofing/printing process by the (outsourced) printing people/group.
Journal of Consumer Affairs n/a n/a 31.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Journal of Consumer Affairs was friendly and professional. The reasons given for rejecting our paper were that it didn't fit within the scope of the journal, and we could understand that decision. I wouldn't hesitate to submit a future paper there.
European Journal of Health Economics n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Wind Energy 27.7
weeks
47.4
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: There was a long delay after initial submission; after some communication, an (assistant?) editor appeared to 're-process' the submission, and adjusted the official submission date a bit later.
One reviewer did not understand some basic material and did not read/check relevant references, and another reviewer had an incorrect understanding of some references used; these appeared to be due to an oversimplified 'engineering' concept of the atmosphere.

Unfortunately the overall time to publication was well over 1 year, and the official article's "online" status/citable reference (2015) was later changed to published status in 2016--thus a total time >2 years for publication.
There are some good articles in this journal, but unfortunately this industrial area (wind) is occupied by both engineers and scientists--with significantly different experience and very large gaps in understanding.
PLoS ONE 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: It took about 3 weeks before the paper was even sent out for review.

The editorial process was problematic for us. Our paper was rejected despite one positive and one negative, but flawed, review. Rather than attempting to obtain another opinion, the editor took it upon himself to reject.
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14.6
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Nucleic Acids Research 4.4
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Women's Studies International Forum 19.9
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Empirical analysis for a philosophical journal
Biometrical Journal 10.7
weeks
27.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Journal of Public Economics 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 3.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Photochemistry and Photobiology 4.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 23.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Absolutely no feedback, despite having taken more than 3 weeks to come to this decision.
Nature Methods n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Photonics n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejected without review, but the submission process was relatively straightforward and the decision from PNAS took only about a week, so all things considered a positive experience and did not waste too much of our time.
Wear n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our manuscript about influence of nanoparticles on anti-wear properties was declined by journal "Wear" with the explanation by Editor, that our report does not discuss wear. The fact that the report was presented in World Tribology Congress was disregarded, despite "Wear" being the official publication of the Congress. Eventually our article was published by "Lubrication Science".
Tribology and Lubrication Technology n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3
(good)
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I did not even send my manuscript to Tribology and Lubrication Technology. Editors themselves selected my 1999 article from Tribology Transactions and reprinted it in 2011. They did not even ask for my consent, which would be quite OK, except that they accidentally erased one of my figures and inserted another figure twice instead.
Lubrication Science 30.6
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: It took more than half year to get the first batch of reviews. Then the second round of review involved only one reviewer, who was asking several unreasonable requests. One of them was to supply spectra, showing the absence of peaks despite our mentioning in the text that no signal was detected. Later the Editor overruled the requests of that reviewer.
Environmental and Resource Economics n/a n/a 42.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Land Economics 3.9
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Mathematical Physics 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
PLoS ONE 8.3
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The first part of the process was rather smooth, but the story was not finished after the primary acceptance. On January 8th 2016 we were informed that during the technical check a potential competing interest between one of the authors and the manuscript-handling Academic Editor was discovered, as they have co-published together within the last five years. It was the journal who selected the handling editor (who was not among the suggested Academic Editors that we were requested to indicate in the submission form). Therefore it's the journal's full responsibility and conflict of interest issues should have been checked at the start of the submission procedure and not after the evaluation of the manuscript.
On January 11th 2016 we have been informed that our manuscript has been assigned to a new Academic Editor and already on January 12th we got the notice that our manuscript did not meet the criteria for publication and therefore has been rejected, giving a very short and scientifically rather doubtful opinion to which we were not asked to respond, thus overruling the decision of the first editor and the reviewers.
We perceived this procedure as enormously disrespectful towards the authors and the reviewers who deemed the manuscript suitable for publication. After having contacted the senior editors and the journal management team asking for a more detailed explanation regarding their decision, there was no reply until this date (29. 4. 2016).
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computers in Biology and Medicine n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Earth and Planetary Science Letters n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Eating Disorders n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Personality and Individual Differences 23.0
weeks
38.9
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The revised manuscript responded to all the original reviewers comments and made all changes as requested. It was rejected following revision.

The goalposts were moved at halftime because the revised manuscript was reviewed by an additional reviewer. This was confirmed to me by the publisher.

Following a letter of complaint to the editor, I was informed that:

'the timeline for this issue is considerably more drawn out than what it is typical for a standard issue. With that said, this special issue is more reflective of a grant or scholarship rather than a standard publication. Consequently, the adjudication process is very strict, and requires that only a handful of nearly 200 submissions are retained for publication. '

This paper was submitted to a special issue for early career researchers. I assumed that I was submitting a manuscript for publication and not making a grant application. If this is indeed true, it should have been made clear to all authors at the point of submission and not revealed over a year later following a slow and unhelpful review process.
PLoS Medicine 13.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Sociology n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The exact wording: "Unfortunately we do not feel that this work is suitable for publication in this journal at the present time. "
Alternate journal was recommended.