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
Astronomy and Astrophysics 17.4 wks 20.1 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The review was thorough and comprehensive, well worth the time I had to wait for it.
Ethnicities 13.0 wks 19.5 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Ecological Modelling 15.2 wks 19.5 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: I think the reviewers did a very good job at reviewing the paper, which has improved substantially before publication. The reviewing process took a relatively long time, but it was overall satisfactory.
Journal of African Economies 17.4 wks 30.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 12.0 wks 12.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: This was a paper based on an invited oral presentation. One review was brief and identified salient points that the reviewer valued. The second review was longer, asked some good questions and made some helpful suggestions that I could easily respond to with minor revisions.
Mind 47.7 wks 52.1 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
International Journal of Hospitality Management 8.7 wks 26.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Annals of Tourism Research 13.0 wks 17.4 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13.0 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Planta 4.0 wks 5.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Cultural Dynamics 3.0 wks 11.7 wks n/a 1 1 (bad) 3 (good) Accepted
Policy Sciences 10.8 wks 15.2 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Policy Sciences was an excellent journal to work with. At least in our case, reviewers selected demonstrated knowledge of the specific research domain, and raised good questions. The editor is also very professional and timely in responses.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership 21.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Of the two reviews, one recommended minor revisions and one recommended rejection. Both provided evidence for their recommendations, but the referee recommending rejections actually provided inaccurate evidence (some claims about the data that we could have corrected in an authors' response had we been given the opportunity). The editor rejected the manuscript. I do not think it is professional to reject a manuscript based on one reviewer's recommendation.
Voluntas 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The single reviewer who advised rejection wrote about the "interesting" aspects of our ms, but then offered three minor objections (one of which was that a table was oddly placed!). The concerns could have been addressed in a revision so I did not feel the objections warranted rejection. I think we deserved a chance to respond to the reviewer's suggestions. When I asked the Editor for additional feedback I received no reply. Rejecting a ms on the basis of one poor quality referee report is unprofessional.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10.8 wks 47.7 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: I have received useful reviews in a reasonable time for the first two rounds of submission. However, the third round of revisions took almost six months.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8.7 wks 14.7 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: I have received decently useful comments in a reasonable time. Fast online publication before print. However, it may takes up to a year or more before the final version is published.
Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 13.0 wks 15.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The editor works hard to get reviewers comply with the deadlines. In general, I believe he manages well exchanges between authors and reviewers.
International Journal of Business and Social Science 2.0 wks 2.0 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Accepted
Motivation: The reviews contained no comments at all. They were only yes/no evaluations based on six criteria. Very disappointing... I even suspect - although I have no proof of this - that the review process is bogus. Besides, I had asked the editor to wait before publishing the article because I was waiting fo an official authorization from my organization, but he did not.
Evaluation Review 19.5 wks 22.5 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Very helpful Editor.
Journal of European Public Policy 4.3 wks 7.3 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I have received very useful reviews in a short time. The online prepublication version of my article was published in less than 6 months following initial submission. Moreover, the Editors are open to suggestions and do not follow 'slavishly' reviewers' comments.
Cognition and Emotion 60.8 wks 103.0 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Drawn back
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13.0 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was handled professionally with high-quality reports given by external reviewers.
Clinical Anatomy n/a n/a 10.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Clinical Otolaryngology 8.7 wks 10.7 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Easy communication with the editorial office.
Help to try to improve and reach pubblication rather than quick rejection.
The comments and critics by reviewers were logical and objective
British Journal of Social Psychology 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Social and Cultural Geography 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Children and Society 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: I was very disappointing to wait over three months for a rejection based on one flimsy review. A desk reject would have been much preferred. Alternatively I would have expected much more robust feedback, even if that led to a rejection.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Personnel Review 52.1 wks 52.1 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: Even when the reviews were in, it took the editor months to make/ communicate his/her decision.
Public Management Review 10.0 wks 20.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: relatively quick review procedure + editor aimed at publishing interesting paper ; and improving manuscripts, rather being an easy rejector
Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung 4.0 wks 4.0 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 4.3 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Professional and personal handling of the manuscript, fast review, helpfulness of journal staff. Especially the fast handling was brilliant compared to other journals!
Journal of Contemporary Asia 4.3 wks 5.3 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The process from submission to decision is very efficient. The editor, Kevin Hewison, does a good job on it.
Plant Molecular Biology 4.4 wks 7.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: - online submittiance to Plant Mol Biol is simple and fast
- review process is transparent and relatively fast
- the selected anonymous reviewers provided helpful criticism with realistic chances to respond properly and in appropriate time
- the handling Editor was an expert in this field and obviously selected the reviewers carefully, also overall handling of the manuscript was very professional
Drug Safety 21.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The rejection per se was not the problem - that's life in science- but rather the EXTREME time lag from submission to rejection.
Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 3.0 wks 4.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6.5 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the publication process was fairly quick and well-streamlined. I particularly benefited from one of the two reviews my paper received, which was maximally useful in the revision process (clear, to the point, and pointing to highly relevant literature I was not familiar with before). This was a feature of the process that stood out (I realize there's an element of luck involved, of course).
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 4.0 wks 4.0 wks n/a 3 1 (bad) 3 (good) Rejected
Molecular Plant Pathology 4.0 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Molecular Plant Pathology has a very rapid handling process, first decisions are usually reached within 4 weeks after submission. The editors often have a positive and constructive attitude.
Signal Processing: Image Communication 7.0 wks 16.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Our experience was good, the reviews were constructive (and kind) and, though the second review took a little longer than the first, we felt that, overall, response was very quick.