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
Journal of Molecular Liquids 4.9 wks 7.1 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
International Journal of Consumer Studies n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My paper was desk-rejected by the editor for being a poor fit, without any meaningful feedback or explanation as to why that was the case. At least they didn't take long.
Food and Bioprocess Technology 13.0 wks 15.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Urban Studies 18.1 wks 42.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: My article was rejected after two review rounds. However, I already convinced two of my three reviewers after the first round. In addition, it is my believe that the editor could have known before sending my paper back to the last reviewer that my changes would not satisfy this reviewer and he should have decided to either accept or reject my paper immediately after I resubmitted the second time. Lastly, the quality of some of the arguments of that final revision was very low.
International Journal of Developmental Biology 9.9 wks 10.0 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Though the review process was not exceptionally quick, and I had to follow up with the editor about 6 weeks after the submission, I thought the review process was fair, and the editors always promptly responded to my queries. I thought the editorial process was very speedy and efficient.
Structural Concrete 8.7 wks 11.7 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I was satisfied with the review process. The communication with the journal was effective, I was informed precisely about the progress of the review and publishing process.
Aging n/a n/a 27.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 12.9 wks 21.6 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Strategic Management Journal 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 13.0 wks 13.2 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was slow due to one referee not responding on time. Otherwise, the manuscript would had been accepted two months before. The editor could have, in principle, accelerate the process, since the requested revisions were insignificant (although the reviewer ticked "major revisions" and then disappeared).
RSC Advances 6.5 wks 6.5 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: Two reviewers were involved. The first one was aggressive sending 15 paragraphs of criticisms regarding fairly everything in the manuscript. The report was full of sarcasm against the author. Fairly unprofessional. The second reviewer was more constructive, but rated the manuscript as not urgent enough. The editor chose to reject the manuscript.
Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 26.0 wks 39.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: Very long review process, though painless. Took 9 months to see the paper publihed after submission. Way too slow for the field.
Construction and Building Materials 14.1 wks 19.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Long review process but fast publication after acceptance
Nuclear Technology and Radiation Protection 3.0 wks 3.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Indoor and Built Environment 8.7 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Organisms Diversity and Evolution 13.0 wks 18.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Basic and Applied Ecology 17.4 wks 26.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Inorganica Chimica Acta 2.0 wks 2.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Structural Chemistry 2.0 wks 3.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Structural Chemistry 4.3 wks 5.8 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Structural Chemistry n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 (very good) Accepted (im.)
Computational and Theoretical Chemistry 14.0 wks 14.0 wks n/a 0 n/a 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The process took three months. A bit slow, but with a good and smooth outcome.
Chemical Physics Letters 4.0 wks 7.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: A reasonably quick handling process. The reviews were thoughtful.
Journal of Physical Chemistry, A n/a n/a 30.4 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There were two reviewers. I got an impression that none of them took the time to read the manuscript attentively. The criticisms were regarding the methodology of research and the reviewer misinterpreted some details based on the report. Both reports were surprisingly similar, like they were written together.
Journal of Physical Chemistry, B 4.3 wks 4.8 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The process was quite quick, 1.5 months overall. The editor did not send for additional review after I implemented revisions.
Energy Policy 17.0 wks 17.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Drawn back
Journal of Food Science and Technology 5.1 wks 7.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: good and reputed journal
PLoS ONE 7.1 wks 9.0 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: Editor's input was minimal (essentially a proxy of the reviewer). A single reviewer was involved in the process initially and a second added later on. Minor revisions listed as Major.
SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics n/a n/a 29.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Associate Editor William Kath said "I have read through your manuscript and, unfortunately, in my opinion it is not within the scope of the journal. Specifically, it appears that the paper is almost entirely focused on analysis without showing how the results are relevant to some specific physical or engineering application. What physical insight or application advance does this mathematical result provide? This application component should be a substantial part of any manuscript submitted to the SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, as indicated by the editorial policy. I'm sorry that I must reject it for publication. It is possible, of course, that another journal, such as Physical Review or one of the IEEE journals, would find it appropriate."
European Journal of Radiology 6.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 4 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Differential Equations 7.9 wks 7.9 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The referee said "The subject is of interest and the material is worth publishing in a journal of a good standing. However, JDE is not appropriate: the main strength of the paper is not in the direction of technical of conceptual analytic innovations, but more in the direction of physical modelling."
The main problem with this report is that the paper contains both technical and conceptual analytic innovations in the field of differential equations. Based on the referee opinion the paper was rejected.
Communications in Mathematical Physics n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor in Chief Horng-Tzer Yau said "I regret to inform you that this topic is not of direct interest to CMP's intended audience. Your paper is more suitable to an applied math or applied physics journal. Mathematical physics is a vast field, and while we have tried to extend our coverage as much as possible, our scope is limited by the editorial board member's particular domains of interest. CMP has a substantial backlog of accepted papers. In an effort to reduce the backlog, we unfortunately cannot accept all of the good works that are submitted. We therefore cannot accept this article for publication."
Physical Review A 5.3 wks 9.0 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The main bad thing with the reviewing process is that the editor and his assistants cannot find qualified reviewers. After first round of reviewing the referee said "I think that the topic is relevant and that an analysis of TM modes in
nonlinear planar waveguides would be interesting for the readers of
Physical Review A. Also, I think that the obtained results are
trustworthy. However, in my opinion the article is poorly structured,
has a tedious presentation, it lacks "physics..."
The other referee also evaluated the results favourably. But then the referees began to discuss side issues like poor structure, tedious presentation and so on. The outcome of their work is rejecting.
Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 4.3 wks 4.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 15.7 wks 18.7 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Reasonably fast process. Good quality review.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 18.1 wks 18.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Optik n/a n/a 273.6 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Plant Molecular Biology 26.7 wks 26.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Euphytica 6.9 wks 7.0 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: review process was fast and easy to follow
Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 17.4 wks 30.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The journal's review process if very good. But they took too much of time during revision. The online said the review process is over within two months. But it took another one month for me to get the review reports. Otherwise, the entire review process was excellent.