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
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 17.4 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Ecological Indicators 6.5 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Fast and professional work of editorial board. Accurate and helpful reviews.
Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 8.5 wks 8.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: A very quick review and publishing process. An unedited article version was available online 9 days after acceptance, final version 2 weeks later.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 20.4 wks 20.4 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The journal was extremely slow to assign peer reviewers, admitting after three months (and several enquiries from us) that they had not yet sent the manuscript out for review. Peer review comments were ultimately received from three peer reviewers, among whom there was considerable disagreement. The reviewers who criticised the manuscript were fair in their criticism and we felt that their feedback would have been relatively easy to integrate into the manuscript. However, after nearly five months, the editor recommended outright rejection, pushing our publication timelines back significantly (p<0.05).
Ecological Entomology 32.5 wks 32.5 wks n/a 1 2 (moderate) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: In Ecological Entomology is very poor contact with editors. After waiting 3 months for any message from the editorial board, I send few times mails (or using author centre contact forms) to editorial board with ask for decision. It was necessary to send questions to other members of the board as editor handling my paper did not answer for my messages. I took 7,5 months to get first and the only review of my paper.
Addiction Research and Theory 26.0 wks 52.1 wks n/a 1 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Accepted
Motivation: The unacceptably long processing times speak for themselves. And even these were reached only by repeated "facilitation" of the editors.
Gut n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was not reviewed, but checked by someone who decided it unsuitable. In spite of this I think that a rapid response in a respectful letter saved me time enough to send the manuscript to another journal the same day. I don't agree with these methods, but at least they did not cause unnecessary delays.
Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry n/a n/a 18.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The standard text was specially uninformative and unnecessarily impolite. Just to reject something without actually analysing the text does not need so much time: The e-mail was standard, praising their "rapid" pre-review process. I am an editor myself and consider this behaviour as a lack of respect towards the Authors
Water Research 15.2 wks 17.2 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Review process generally ok, no specific comments
Quarterly Journal of Economics n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: In spite of the extremely quick and, to us, disappointing decision, the editor had carefully reviewed the paper, provided valuable feedback, motivated the decision convincingly, and suggested alternative outlets.
Science of Computer Programming 21.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 0 (very bad) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: Two out of three reviews may serve as example of bad will and incompetence. One of the reviewers explicitly acknowledged that a substantial part of the work is beyond his/her scope. Still, his review was considered valid.
Oxford Review of Education 19.5 wks 19.5 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: Overall, the review process went fine. In the end I only got feedback from one reviewers, the other one did not provide any comments.
Journal of Human Resources n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick desk rejection with useful editor response!
Economics of Education Review 17.4 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: One really good (i.e. useful) referee report, one useless report, and a useful letter from the editor.
Scandinavian Journal of Economics 17.9 wks 17.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 17.4 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was reasonably expeditious and reviewers' comments contributed to improving the paper.
Communications in Mathematical Physics n/a n/a 121.6 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 4 months I wrote to the Editorial Office and they immediately reply that
You paper is still under review, but I will contact the editor in case there is need of reminders.
Stem Cell Research 6.0 wks 6.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and straightforward review/submission process.
BMC Molecular Biology 23.0 wks 58.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: The overall review process took a very long time. Sending several reminders after each submission step seemed to speed up the process, no clue what the outcome would be without those reminders. Based on the communication with the associate editor, it was clear that the internal communication in this journal was not working properly. However, for the fact that apparantly they had a hard time to find reviewers, they should get some credit.
Media, Culture and Society 13.5 wks 13.5 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: We received one set of comments and it was very brief. Not what you would expect after three months of waiting. We requested for the second reviewer's comments. The editorial office would not respond. There was a standard line in the email which read 'given the amount of manuscripts under review we are often only able to offer brief indications as to why, after careful reading, a manuscript has not been selected for publication and these indications have been sent along with this message'.

It was difficult to work out whether the brief indication was full review by a reviewer or not. The office would not respond to queries.
Toxicology n/a n/a 10.5 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It appears to me that the Editor(s) want to promote the new online Journal they suggested in the rejection mail.
Representation 4.3 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: They cut-up my figures and re-assembled them to make them fit better the page. Unfortunately they messed up a bit, and it took two weeks at the proofing stage to sort this out (they weren't able to fix it and I produced new figures according to their attempts). Overall a quite ordinary experience.
Journal of Consumer Policy 4.0 wks 5.0 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Terrorism and Political Violence 4.3 wks 7.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was exemplary. Quick turn around, excellent comments, an involved, professional and motivated senior editor. Well done!
Journal of Mathematical Biology 2.9 wks 2.9 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The rejection was based mainly in one of the reviewers that pointed that it was not significant discovery without any argumentation (in only two sentences).
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 14.0 wks 18.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: It was a long time between the submission of the revision and the final decision since it was only a minor revision and I suspect it was not sent to the reviewers (do not know for sure). Also the process between the acceptance and the final publication is being quite long.
Death Studies 17.4 wks 46.9 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: I felt that the authours could be informed sooner about the editorial decisions and without having to ask for a reply three months after (re)submission. Apart from this, the collaboration with the editors during the review process went fine.
Astronomy and Astrophysics n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computer Physics Communications 6.0 wks 11.8 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer's comments were helpful and practical. Also, the editor's notes helped to improve the manuscript. Generally, the communication with the journal was easy, fast and constructive.
Tobacco Control 8.7 wks 9.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: After being asked to make revisions, which we did, the manuscript was rejected with no specific reason other than generic reasons like lack of space.
International Journal for Equity in Health 8.7 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Sleep Research 5.4 wks 8.9 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was reasonably quick, the reviewer comments were really helpful, and also after publication the publisher was very quick in correcting the omissions.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 130.2 wks 151.2 wks n/a 4 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Motivation: Good reports, quick handling.
Agricultural Systems 10.8 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Fundamenta Informaticae 4.3 wks 5.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite fast (half a year in total). The reviews were detailed and exhaustive. I do not know, how long the publishing process is.
Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux 23.1 wks 23.1 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 16.1 wks 16.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 14.4 wks 24.3 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: I can not complain.