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
BioMetals 2.0
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 8.9
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Journal of Environmental Law 4.3
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: My overall impression was that the editorial team is a very experienced one and that the review process was managed at all stages very swiftly and, above all, very professionally. It was a very positive experience, from which my research benefited greatly.
American Journal of Public Health 12.6
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Clinical Science 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: We had to wait 5 weeks for just only 1report from an external referee and comments (two lines) from a member of the Editorial Board. Moreover the rebuttal letter was not replied.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 16.0
weeks
43.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This has been the toughest but also most rewarding review process we have ever gone through (with an experience of more than 70 peer-reviewed articles together and a journal editor on board). The quality of the reviews was remarkable. We were forced to think further, broader, deeper, and again. We came out of the process exhausted, but extremly satisfied. Academic collegiality at its best.
IEEE Transactions on Communications 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers failed to recognize the fact that a new method of numerically deriving the exact probability of error for M-ary PSK in flat fading channels was proposed, besides a new channel independent precoder. The reviewers also claimed that the proposed channel independent precoder is very similar to the existing SC-OFDM. However, again the reviewers did not recognize that many of the results for the proposed channel independent precoder, were derived differently.
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 32.4
weeks
45.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Rigorous and very good review process that improved the quality of the manuscript considerably.
Waste Management 10.1
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Editor final comment about rejection is not consistent with reviewers' comments and suggestions. So, it was not clear why the paper was not accepted.
Chemical Engineering Science 8.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This is an excellent journal in its field and we are glad with the editorial process.
Carbohydrate Polymers 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
British Journal of Dermatology 7.4
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Food Chemistry 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology, B 5.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Current Science 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Soft Matter n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports 5.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process has been of help in improving the formal quality of data.
Nature Climate Change 8.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: It is a very quick, very thorough review process and I was very impressed by it all at every stage
Gender and Society 10.1
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Scientific Reports 3.4
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: my manuscript didnot undergo review
Veterinary Journal 2.0
weeks
23.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was to.
Anaerobe 3.6
weeks
38.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 52.1
weeks
78.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Interacting with Computers 14.0
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews took a bit of time, but the feedback from all three reviewers as well as the editor was of high quality - thorough and helpful. Furthermore, the publication process after the paper was accepted was very efficient.
Nationalities Papers 3.6
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The speed and the quality of the review process was excellent.
Danish Journal of Geography 2.0
weeks
2.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
PLoS ONE 14.0
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Journal of Marine Systems 10.9
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: First revision took a bit of time, but the reviews were fair and helpful. The manuscript was accepted rapidly after corrections were made.
Journal of Geometry and Physics 10.1
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: We sent the paper to the editor for the special issue, Prof. Eva Miranda, and has been fast and serious in the whole process
International Journal of the Commons 17.4
weeks
32.5
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This is a good journal as the editor will respond promptly and its genuineness on the review is convincing
Social Psychological and Personality Science n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Marine Geology 17.4
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Computational Physics 17.4
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: I have published two papers with JCOMP, and in both cases I was very pleased with the overall process. The reviews were useful in pointing out ways to improve the paper, and the process was relatively fast, less than 6 months from first submission to publication. Above all, I liked the fact that the reviewers were not trying to impose their viewpoint, as in "this is how I would have done it", but mostly concerned with technical points.
Journal of Physical Oceanography 9.6
weeks
18.6
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: This paper was assigned to three reviewers, and in addition it was reviewed by the associate editor as well. Some of the reviews reflected personal opinions rather factual errors. Indeed, I later realized that the published paper contains some typos in one of the formulas. I wished the reviewers were more attentive to that, rather than pushing their own philosophy. Moreover, having 3+1 reviewers means a lot of constituencies to satisfy.
PLoS ONE 13.0
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Medical Journal of Australia n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No particular reason was given
Optical and Quantum Electronics 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Optics n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Modern Optics 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected