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
Behavioral Ecology n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports 11.1 wks 11.1 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: Very slow review process. Manuscript was sent for review after 7 weeks of submission.
Animal Behaviour 10.4 wks 10.4 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: the review process was extremely long.
Letters in Mathematical Physics 17.7 wks 17.7 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The process was quite fast but the report was not serious and quite offensive.
The argument for the rejection was a conjecture made in 1997 and never proved.
Computers in Human Behavior 30.0 wks 60.1 wks n/a 1 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: Two x 30 month review rounds after the first review only suggested minor revisions. In the second round there was one clearly biased reviewer who did not seem to understand the aim of the research and how it differed from the context of their own research (which they wanted us to cite heavily). The editor was clearly out of depth, seemed to have trouble finding and following up on expert reviewers, and in the end deferred to one very biased reviewer.
Journal of Food Chemistry and Nanotechnology 5.7 wks 5.9 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The editor decision was quick, and it considered the reviewers' comments and my responses.
I was also particularly impressed about the speed of the proof creation, and the changes I asked to make on the proof. In few days after receving the corrected proof, the article was published online.
Journal of Separation Science 3.7 wks 57.9 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation 8.7 wks 15.2 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: I have fixed several bugs that existed in the original version of the paper's text.
According to referee's notes I have corrected the Introduction of the paper and added
a few additional references in the bibliography.
Language 33.3 wks 33.3 wks n/a 0 n/a 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Editor noted in his acceptance that the paper was "accepted as is, a rarity at this journal". Consequently we didn't get to see the peer review reports, even though the paper had spent over seven months in the review process.
Chemical Engineering and Technology 10.0 wks 12.0 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' comments were contradictory.
Industrial Marketing Management 11.6 wks 12.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Tropical Forest Science 17.4 wks 26.0 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Canadian Medical Association Journal n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Elife 4.9 wks 4.9 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was very smooth and professional. The editors were very willing to work with you to get the manuscript accepted. They were also very good at keeping me up-to-date with where the manuscript was at in the review process. Everything was very transparent.
Heredity 6.4 wks 6.4 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: Three reviewers judged very differently about the manuscript, one suggested minor changes and made valueable comments, one was intermediate, suggested major revisions, but from the report it appears that this was not a specialist in the field, the third referee recommended rejection, although there was only one major point that was criticized. We wrote a rebuttal to the points raised by the referees and asked for a resubmission, which was allowed, although the initial rejection. We then re-worked the manuscript including many new analyses.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 5.1 wks 5.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Drawn back
American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2.6 wks 7.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Reviewer turnaround was very efficient. Statistical review was very thorough.
European Journal of Nutrition 13.6 wks 20.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
American Journal of Psychiatry n/a n/a 13.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Affective Disorders n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
BMC Psychiatry 7.6 wks 10.6 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 6.7 wks 7.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: In general, the review process was OK. The total duration was reasonable given this field of research.
Optics and Laser Technology 6.5 wks 6.5 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Kyklos 6.9 wks 15.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Quick and transparent process; comments from referees and editor were very helpful to improve the paper
Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science n/a n/a 31.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Heredity 6.9 wks 6.9 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Nature Communications n/a n/a 24.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: immediate rejection that took them 25 days!
Optical Fiber Technology 4.3 wks 5.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of International Relations and Development 14.3 wks 77.6 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: I had to wait more than one year for a decision after the first review round.
All the comments by the reviewers were addressed in the second round but the editors decided to send to the reviewers again. One of the reviewers rejected the paper using completely new arguments that had never been raised before referring to points that were in the original paper.
Sleep Medicine 6.7 wks 9.9 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Biological Control 11.6 wks 11.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Communications in Mathematical Physics 9.7 wks 9.7 wks n/a 0 n/a 0 (very bad) Rejected
Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 34.1 wks 38.5 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Astroparticle Physics 6.1 wks 6.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Astronomy and Astrophysics n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
British Journal of Developmental Psychology 6.7 wks 9.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
JAMA Internal Medicine n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)