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
Regulation and Governance n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I appreciate the prompt read and rejection of the paper for not being a good fit with the journal. It allows me to submit elsewhere while the topic is current.
International and Comparative Law Quarterly 43.4 wks 43.4 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: The review took over 10 months, and several unreturned emails checking on the status of the review. After this wait, one review was one paragraph long and simply stated the abstract should be "jazzed up". The other review was two paragraphs without much substance. For a top journal, I was disappointed in the length of review, quality of review and lack of communication.
International Studies Quarterly n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Union Politics 7.0 wks 25.0 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The editor is very involved in the review process. This was my second experience with EUP and although the review process is tough, it is also overall rather fair and the editor seems to be able to get reviewers who are both fast and efficient.
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The process was overall ok. My main issue is that we submitted the paper to a special issue, but it was considered "off topic" and then sent to the regular track. It took 3 months to receive the reply, which is more or less the average in my field.
Psychological Medicine n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No one likes rejection, but at least it was handled quickly
British Journal of Psychiatry 21.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: My only complaint is the time taken rather than the quality of the reviews
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 21.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: My manuscript was revised thoroughly. I got feedback from both reviewers. In my opinion, it took quiet a long time before I got news.
Biology of the Cell 0.6 wks 1.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 42.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After waiting for almost six weeks, I got a response from the editor that the paper had been rejected before external review, because the paper would be more appropriate for a public health journal. This reason still doesn't make much sense to me because I had always thought that public health was pone of the areas covered by Social Science and Medicine.
Race Ethnicity and Education 17.4 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Ethnic and Racial Studies 5.3 wks 5.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
European Sociological Review 17.4 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Social Forces 26.0 wks 26.0 wks n/a 3 1 (bad) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: I don't think the editor understood the comments of the reviewers. Either way, he did not give a good reason to reject the piece
Poetics 26.0 wks 30.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Greater editors (they also give very good and constructive comments) and generally great reviewers.
Sociological Forum 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: It was clear that the editor did not read the reviews thoroughly. The reviews actually contained comments that were totally wrong. The editor did not even notice did, even though the subject of the paper (and thus the reviews) were very much situated in her research field.
Acta Sociologica 26.0 wks 29.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The comments of the reviewers were actually great (very appropriatly selected by the editor). They helped to improve the paper considerably. Also both editors give a lot of suggestions and comments in each round. Only drawback is the long period.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Transportation Research, Part B: Methodological n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It appears that the editor rejected the paper based on the reference list and and not on the journal's scope.

"There was concern that the topic area of your paper did not make Part B an obvious forum for your work (this is reflected to some extent by the fact that your manuscript does not refer to any Part B papers). This is not a criticism of your paper; it simply suggests that other journals are more appropriate."
Transport Policy 47.7 wks 48.7 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: It took very long for the first review. Only after contacting the area editor several times (without any response) a decision was made. The reviewers did not comment much on the main contribution of the paper.
Lancet n/a n/a 42.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Lancet claims that it will usually decide whether to send out for review within 2 weeks. This claim of a quick initial decision encourages many authors (including myself) to submit articles to the Lancet, despite its very low acceptance rate. While a rejection was not a huge surprise, I was disappointed with the 6 weeks it took them to reject without review.
Ecology and Society 26.0 wks 69.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Politics, Philosophy and Economics 21.3 wks 21.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: A bit slow. No reason given for rejection. Reviews were rather positive so not obvious why decision was made to reject. Thorough reviews, polite and rather constructive.
European Journal of Applied Mathematics 32.5 wks 37.9 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: It took a long time to obtain the review, but it was very thorough and useful. After submitting the changes, the editor requested some minor stylistic changes which again improved the manuscript. Overall, the communication with the journal has been effective.
Studies in Language 15.2 wks 16.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast for a linguistics journal and good, thorough reviews.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 20.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reasonably fast, but a bit disappointing that they had us go through the Initial Quality Check for figures using this dreaded Editorial Manager system three times (a big time investment) — before telling us, two weeks later, that they had barely looked at the manuscript and rejected it anyway for "not having the broad appeal needed for PNAS".
PLoS ONE 8.0 wks 8.3 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: According to the editor, the reason the first round of reviewing took more than PLOS ONE's promised 'month on average' was that it was the summer season. Response after the first inquiry was very fast, and a final decision was made only a few days after resubmission.
Human Relations n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor's decision was made very quickly, within a week. I received a couple of constructive points for improvement.
Organization Studies n/a n/a 42.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the paper was rejected, the feedback I received from the editor was very constructive, elaborate, and helpful for further developing the paper.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 6.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer made multiple unprofessional comments that were many times scientifically incorrect and advised to reject. The second reviewer described the paper as "well-written" and asked for minor revisions. The third reviewer also requested only specific revisions. The editors comments referred only to the first reviewers "strongly suggested rejection" opinion and rejected the manuscript based on this with no option of providing a rebuttal against the incorrect claims and statements or opportunity to revise.
Food Microbiology 49.9 wks 49.9 wks n/a 0 n/a 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: There was no option to select "no response received" for this survey. After waiting almost an entire year and constantly contacting the journal for a status update they were unable to inform me of the reason for the delay. Eventually I withdrew my submission and submitted elsewhere as I could not afford to wait even longer with no response at all. It took another month or more just to get confirmation of the withdraw and no reason or apology was given.
Oman Medical Journal 60.8 wks 91.1 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Drawn back
Motivation: My manuscript was accepted in the middle of submission process then suddenly I received further request of major changes. I didn't revise it but I withdrew the paper and submitted it to a higher impact journal in its original state prior to first admission and was accepted in 5 weeks with minor changes requested and done. The most annoying experience with OMJ is that the reviewers sent comments that were not scientifically sound and insisted to be done.
Tertiary Education and Management 4.0 wks 4.7 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The editor was very professional
Higher Education Quarterly 6.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Motivation: The editor was polite and efficient. The quality of the reviews was very good and made me realize that my paper was not.
BMC Biology 6.0 wks 7.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Overall experience with the review process was very positive. Not only the comments from the Referees but also from the Editorial Staff were very constructive and indeed helped us to improve our manuscript. The relatively long time for the first round of revision might be explained by the festivities over Christmas and New Year. The only point that I suggested the Journal to improve was the system for submission of the files of the manuscript.
BMC Psychiatry 5.0 wks 8.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Psychology, Health and Medicine 19.0 wks 19.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer's reports were quite positive, they suggested only a few minor changes. However, the final decision was still rejection without giving any explanation. I think it is not quite fair after 4,5 months of waiting.
Organizational Dynamics n/a n/a 8.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process was very surprising for my coauthorand I because we wrote the article following the structure of the article in the journal and we thought that our work couldfit with the journal. We asked to the journal a more precise explanation respect the evaluation done respect our work but they answer that it was not possible because they receive "hundreds of submissions" and their policy is to first screen articles as to fit in terms of our aims and objectives before going to the next step of developmental reviews. Our article not reached this second step to give us more feedback.
Business Horizons 0.1 wks 1.0 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: My coauthor and I had a very great experience with Business Horizons.
We received a prompt reply and clear suggestions to improve our work.
We accepted the majority of the suggestions and explained why we refused some of them. The answer from the editor was very kind, quick and clear.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 3.0 wks 4.0 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted