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
British Poultry Science 8.7 wks 9.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Editors must consider the paper as fit for reviewing or not based on the merit of the paper and not based on the corresponding authors publishing history or the country.
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 34.7 wks 34.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 18.1 wks 21.9 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: This journal is very meticulous. In addition to doing a thorough job of vetting the scientific content of my article, the editor and his staff made sure that all journal requirements were adhered to completely before accepting manuscripts for publication. And they went about the process very professionally.
Acta Politica 31.0 wks 36.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: One of the reviewer would have liked a different paper, but the editor helped us navigate the challenge.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 3.1 wks 3.4 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Water SA 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Annals of Microbiology 8.7 wks 10.7 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Nice review process
Gaia 34.7 wks 39.1 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: I was very happy with the very fast and well-organized publication process after the editor's final decision (about 1 month) and the great editing support!
New Phytologist n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
BMC Medicine n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Open Linguistics 5.0 wks 5.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were from experts in the subfield, came in swiftly and were quite helpful. After publication, the journal manager shared our paper with many of the people whose research we cited, thus drawing attention to our work. We were happy with this exposure, as we had picked Open Linguistics specifically because its open access nature.
Language and Linguistics Compass 12.1 wks 16.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Good, helpful reviews. Editorial decision was 'accept w/ minor revisions', so in between the outright accept and revise & resubmit choices SciRev offers. It took a long time for the paper to come out post-acceptance.
ChemPhysChem 2.9 wks 2.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Review process well managed by Editors
Journal of Marketing Research 11.1 wks 17.3 wks n/a 4 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of the American Chemical Society 2.6 wks 2.6 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Due to the quality of our manuscript, JACS reviewed, accepted, and published it within a month.
Clinical Chemistry 5.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 6.0 wks 8.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Medical Virology 6.0 wks 7.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
German History n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 (excellent) Accepted (im.)
Motivation: Quick decision, helpful editing, easy transition from ms to publication. Always a pleasure to work with the journal German History.
Annals of Applied Biology 6.1 wks 7.1 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Fast and interesting review.
Pharmacology and Therapeutics 4.0 wks 4.0 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 13.0 wks 14.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Blind review is preferred
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 34.7 wks 52.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: It took several emails to the editor to get the original reviews. Eight months is way too long to wait for reviews.
Aquatic Sciences 13.0 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
International Journal of Product Development 17.4 wks 39.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: Took a long time to go through the review-process with at time confusing requests by various reviewers. I guess this was my last submission to this journal.
Implementation Science n/a n/a 6.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Critical Care n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Environmental Earth Sciences 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Results of my research related to the contamination of heavy metals in the environment (research area - chemistry and geochemistry) has published in international peer-reviewed journals (20 papers), four chapters in monographs international character, and reported on over 30 international and national scientific conferences.
Materials and Manufacturing Processes 11.6 wks 15.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 65 days Drawn back
Motivation: I have decided to share this experience because I have never encountered anything like this before: a journal claiming they could not find an editor after more than two months! And not in some obscure topic (plant biology). This is coming from a journal boasting “speed to publication”… Ridiculous!
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 1.4 wks 2.6 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: The journal provided two superficial reviews below any standard. The first one was only a paragraph long. However, it contained one pertinent comment which wouldn't be possible to notice without carefully reading the manuscript, so my guess is that the reviewer did actually read the paper but didn't bother to comment. The second review was a non-review: it didn't contain a single word (empty text). Not a serious journal.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 5.4 wks 14.6 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: High quality and profound reviews by knowledgeable experts. Their very careful comments took some time to process but they were all correct and they have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. The editor was quite professional and quick with notifications and replies to my queries.
Materials Science and Engineering, C: Materials for Biological Applications 21.4 wks 22.4 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The overall rating of the review process is very good due to the duration of the review and to the selection of the Reviewers, that showed expertise in the fieldof my paper.
European Sociological Review 8.4 wks 8.4 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 26.0 wks 27.0 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: No
Medicine 4.0 wks 7.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Chemical Society Reviews 8.7 wks 12.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Journal of Geometry and Physics 8.7 wks 19.5 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 (excellent) Accepted (im.)
Crop Protection 13.0 wks 13.2 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted