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 Technology Transfer 3.6 wks 3.7 wks n/a 0 n/a 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Very quick process but would have liked to receive the actual reports from the reviewers.
Research Policy n/a n/a 140.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: An outgoing editor did not pass on submitted papers, leading to a long revision process.
Research Policy n/a n/a 69.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International and Comparative Law Quarterly n/a n/a 121.6 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process appeared to be rather unprofessional. The response only came after I asked about the status of the review process. There were no reasons given for the rejection.
Modern Law Review 13.0 wks 19.5 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Very professional handling of the review process. The review process was fast and transparent, and the reviews had a high quality. Even though I did not agree with all parts of the reasoning, I could well understand the decision of the editors.
Games and Economic Behavior 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 1 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The positive point is the short term of the review process.
Negative point: a 2 lines review mostly suggesting another less ranked journal.
Social Problems 21.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Ethnic and Racial Studies 19.5 wks 20.5 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Sociology of Education 9.0 wks 9.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
International Migration 4.3 wks 10.8 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Ethnic and Racial Studies 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Rejected
Journal of Population Ageing 15.2 wks 34.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast initial , and thorough review, of which one review disagreed with a lot of aspects in the manuscript. The journal was also flexible enough to extend my deadline for resubmission with a week. The decision on acceptance took very long though, and involved me chasing up the editor two times to ask what was happening with my paper. But in the end happy with the process
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10.0 wks 20.2 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quick, double-blind, and seemed fair. The requirements of the editors were based on the reviews and were justified. The only drawback was that one of the three reviews was extremely short and not helpful at all. In my opinion, the editors shouldn't have considered this a proper review.
Archaeological Prospection 6.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Archaeological Prospection 10.0 wks 11.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Sociological Methods and Research n/a n/a 158.1 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very polite answer from the editor. Submission was handled relatively professionally, although the communication with the journal did not work always well (we received an acnkowledgement of receipt for our submission only 1.5 months after our submission and only after having sollicited for an answer).
European Journal of Health Economics 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The review's comments were full of grammatical mistakes. There were no suggestions in the comments on how to improve the paper. The comments also seem unnecessarily harsh.
Journal of Human Resources n/a n/a 9.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very polite ans well motivated answer from the editor.
Journal of Human Genetics 13.0 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: I have very disappointed experiences for this journal. For examples, the paper from the some influential groups may be accepted within a day after submission while in other situation it takes long time to be published (You can check by looking closely receipt and acceptance dates). Even though sometime reviewers do not understand the topics, they gave irrational comments, requests revisions and finally rejected without giving any rational comments.
Organization Studies n/a n/a 52.5 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor stated that they normally do not take this long to respond and an apology was given for the delay.
International Journal of Educational Development 60.8 wks 60.8 wks n/a 1 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Environmental Science and Pollution Research n/a n/a 42.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Zoologischer Anzeiger 5.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Econometrica n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor did not bother to look at the paper at all
Quarterly Journal of Economics n/a n/a 4.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The reason made it obvious that the editor did not even bother to read the introduction, likely did not even make it through the abstract
Management Science 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Motivation: Review process efficient, handling by editor professional, good reviews
Economics Letters 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 1 2 (moderate) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The referee recommended a minor revision, but an anonymous associate editor recommended rejection without providing a reason. The editor followed that recommendation without even looking into the report
Military Medicine Drawn back before first editorial decision after 23 days Drawn back
Motivation: after 11 days I requested a Status of the manuscript, which appeared still as "submitted" - answer to the request:
The status of your manuscript is:
Your manuscript has been submitted and it will be reviewed for formatting and relevancy as soon as possible.
NMR in Biomedicine 6.4 wks 18.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Population Research and Policy Review 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Motivation: This paper won an award at a national conference, and the editor solicited this paper for submission. We are outside the field and unfamiliar with the field conventions. Given the circumstances, we were surprised to get an outright rejection rather than the opportunity to revise the paper to meet the field's conventions.
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health n/a n/a 21.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Sexually Transmitted Infections 4.3 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: One review was 1 sentence long, asking why anyone would be interested in the topic. The other review addressed unclear abbreviations in tables and made small suggestions for the figures; only substantive question was central to the paper.
Journal of Urban Health n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reason was generic: "Due to the large volume of excellent manuscripts that are submitted, editors are often forced to make decisions based on topic priority."
Sexually Transmitted Diseases 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: Paper used advanced methods for an analytic study design relating to a question of social disparities in health using high-quality data from multi-million dollar project with no recent equivalent from 12 years ago. Reviewer dismissed paper in 1 sentence: data were "REALLY old".
Journal of American College Health n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Dataset was more than 3 years old, so journal would not consider despite reasons given in cover letter such as addressing several past studies published in the journal with better data.
Environmental Values 51.2 wks 58.8 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 0 (very bad) Accepted
Motivation: The overall process took very long and I was not always notified about delays. I had to send quite some notifications to remind the editor about my submission. Additionally, the editor did not always keep her promises which resulted in some frustration on my end. To be honest, I would not recommend anyone to submit a paper to this journal. It's a very tiresome process.
Nature Climate Change 5.0 wks 8.0 wks n/a 3 0 (very bad) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: Editorial management: excellent.
Review quality: very poor. The paper has been rejected because results are not consistent with reviewers beliefs. Unfortunately, reviewers have not provided any scientific argument and reference to support their opinion. Overall, not even a single suggestion has been provided to improve the analysis and the manuscript.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17.4 wks 17.4 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer focused on matters of presentation and style, commenting in detail about graphs and tables without addressing at all the paper's topic.
Social Networks 17.4 wks 26.0 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
International Political Sociology 26.0 wks 26.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers were favorable in recommending publication (one accept and one suggested a couple of revisions), but the editors rejected it anyway, with no opportunity to revise. Plus, the 6 month review time was unprofessional.