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
School Psychology International 6.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Accepted
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2.9 wks n/a n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: This was a theoretical paper (which are known to be hard to push through). I found Reviewer 1 very good. In a polite way, s/he appreciated the things s/he found good, and also pointed out the gaps in the paper. This served a lot.
I felt Reviewer 2 acid. In a very ironic way, s/he picked at everything - in a part of these, however, s/he was right. This was useful but the way s/he behaved, was degrading.
Altogether, these reviews was very useful for me because I could re-elaborate the paper which became much stronger.
The whole editorial process was smooth and rapid, the people working at PNAS was polite and elegant. Thank you.
Journal of the American Ceramic Society n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 10.0 wks 14.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Very professional editorial process
Spanish Journal of Psychology 10.0 wks 12.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Professional process of the paper; correct!
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26.0 wks 26.0 wks n/a 0 n/a 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: Very slow process
Psychometrika 13.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I was very satisfied with the way the Editor offered us guidance and has been attentive to the specific nature of our manuscript. The reviewers' comments have been very focused, and have contributed a lot to improve our work
Information Fusion 45.6 wks 62.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Criminology 13.0 wks n/a n/a 4 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Great comments and very helpful suggestions giving me many avenues for my next revision. The reviewers and the editor were very encouraging and helpful in providing a critical and important assessment of the scientific rigor of my work. I took their suggestions and improved my manuscript significantly. The manuscript has been published and has been praised by colleagues. Although my manuscript was not accepted for publication in Criminology, anonymous reviewers and the editor were helpful in guiding me towards eventual publication. I am most thankful to them.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39.1 wks n/a n/a 2 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: After about five months of waiting to see if my coauthored manuscript was sent out for review or rejected outright, I began emailing the editorial staff and the editor of the journal to see if correspondence from them to me had been lost or if my manuscript that I submitted had been lost. I did not hear a word from them for many weeks. After 8 months, I received an e-mail stating that they were waiting for one last reviewer to submit a response. After 9 months I received a casual e-mail from my coauthor stating that she was sad that the journal rejected our article. I suspected that the journal sent their official response to her and not to me. I sent a last e-mail asking that the journal please send me the reviews and the editor's decision because I was the corresponding author. I was surprised about what I received after 9 months of waiting and many e-mails inquiring what I could do from my end to help locate any lost correspondences. There were only two reviews. One was one paragraph and the other was one page long. Both suggested that the article be rejected outright, but neither offered details to support the decision or suggestions for improvement. To this day, I don't know why it took 9 months to receive two reviews comprising only a page and one paragraph worth of comments. By the way, I immediately submitted my article to another prestigious journal in criminology and received three excellent reviews with many insightful and engaging critiques and suggestions. After revising the manuscript, the paper was accepted and one reviewer (the most critical and insightful), commented that the paper was destined to become a classic in the field. The stark contrast between my review experiences could, of course, have much to do with scholarly differences of opinion in the field and the importance of finding a good fit between a manuscript and a journal. But, still, 9 months seems too long to wait to receive two scant and extremely disengaged reviews.
Notfall + Rettungsmedizin (Critical Care and Emergency Medicine) 11.0 wks n/a n/a 1 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: one reviewer has not completely read the paper; he claimed himself being not an expert in the field, but would be able to regularly "understand" articles in the field; advised author to have persons with "no idea" about the topic to review possible resubmission beforehand
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 13.0 wks n/a n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Computers and Education n/a n/a 91.2 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Design Studies 13.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Hypertension in Pregnancy 4.3 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Rapid review in relation to experience with other journals
Relevant and incisive comments from reviewers who demonstrated knowledge of field and had clearly read the article properly.
No irrelevant comments/critic
Scandinavian Journal of Pain 2.5 wks 2.6 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Pain n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular Pain 13.0 wks n/a n/a 2 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewprocess took very long and in my opinion one of the reviewer seemed not to have read the manuscript properly. When we requested response from the editor because of apperent missunderstandings in the reviewers comments we did not recieve any answer.
Trends in Neurosciences 7.0 wks n/a n/a 3 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Molecular Neurobiology 4.3 wks 5.1 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Evolutionary Ecology 10.0 wks 12.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 4.3 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was good in the statistical analysis of the results
Europar 8.7 wks n/a n/a 3 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers appeared to be in a hurry, looking for any excuse to reject. The reasons they gave were imaginary, things that existed only in the reveiwer's minds. The words they used did not match the contents of the paper. This is irresponsible behavior. The publishing of papers is the primary criteria for being hired into research positions. These reviewers have tremendous power over the lives of authors. There needs to be a feedback mechanism in place that corrects their behavior when they act irresponsibly like this.
Results in Mathematics 32.5 wks 32.5 wks n/a 0 n/a 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The paper was accepted within a reasonable amount of time and the Editor very nicely showed concern in speeding up the publication (proposing us to publish the paper in a special issue). I didn't put the mark "10" just because I like to read the referees's report and we didn't have access to them (but I confess I didn't ask and was happy with the acceptance)
Clinical Neurophysiology 5.0 wks n/a n/a 2 1 (bad) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The review process was rather fast as compared to other journals (2 reviews after about 5 weeks). The comments of one reviewer were very destructive and did not seem reasonable to me.
Journal of Neural Engineering 7.0 wks n/a n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The Editor rejected the paper, although the Reviewer's comments seemed quite positive to me. I could not really understand the Editor's decision.
Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 10.0 wks 12.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The Editor's as well as the Reviewer's comments were very helpful and constructive-minded, they helped to further improve the quality of the paper. In my opinion, the first review round took relatively long, but after that, everything went fine and quickly.
Journal of Computational Neuroscience 5.3 wks 5.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: This was my first experience with double-blinded process. I have to say that it was a really positive experience for the obvious reason; I noticed that there was not bias at all in the process regarding our experience in the field. They evaluate only the submitted work.
Journal of Andrology 2.0 wks 3.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were knowledgable about the topic and offered good insight. The review was prompt as were the AEs reports and final decision.
Science n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS Genetics 10.8 wks 20.2 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: I think the reviewers put effort in their reviews, and the paper became better thanks to the reviews. The whole process took long though, and I felt it wasn't necessary to send the paper to the reviewers a third time.
BMC Psychiatry 13.0 wks 17.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Test 17.4 wks 19.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Cell Calcium 7.1 wks 9.1 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: I am satisfied with the reviewing process, only the time for the first reviews could have been shorter.
Glia 4.3 wks 10.7 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: My main concern is about the reviewers. After adding new data (according to the reviews) and re-submission, one reviewer came up with totally new points that could have been addressed already in the first version of the manuscript.
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 5.0 wks 9.0 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 5.7 wks 14.3 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: After manuscript acceptance, a lot of tedious small changes of the galley proof was asked by the Editorial office
Acta Acustica united with Acustica 13.0 wks n/a n/a 2 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The review process was unfair. I pointed out that one reviewer was wrong concerning an alleged error. The associate editor refused to forward this clarification to the said reviewer. Moreover, he refused to answer some questions regarding arguments for rejection or revision. Instead, he suggested resubmission of a newe article after revision. But: What should be revised? I was not amused.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 8.7 wks 23.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: I found the process tidy and the reviewers' comments very helpful. The overall duration of the process was too long to encourage many new submissions from my lab, however. The nearly 18-month delay between manuscript acceptance and the publication date was particularly impractical. Still, it's a good journal and I believe our manuscript was much improved through the review process.