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
Psychology and Health n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: One week after submission the status of the paper changed to 'Under review'. Two days later, however, the paper was rejected anyway.
Journal of Business Strategy n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted (im.)
Poetics 25.7
weeks
25.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 6.7
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: Review was quick and of good quality
Sexually Transmitted Infections 10.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Sexually Transmitted Infections 4.3
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Agricultural Systems 14.6
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Interesting review that clearly improved the final manuscript.
Five weeks to get under review seems a long time but I guess it is not always easy to find reviewers.
European Sociological Review 45.7
weeks
45.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It really took a bit long (almost a year) to get just one reviewer. The review was detailed, though.
Health Psychology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
World Development n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Consumer Culture 19.3
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very constructive and useful reviews.
I was really impressed with this review-process.

The only drawback is that it took (in my opinion) too long when I received the first reviews.
Public Opinion Quarterly 5.9
weeks
17.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Women's Studies International Forum n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Research in Higher Education n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
European Urban and Regional Studies n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Social Welfare 23.0
weeks
24.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was handled very well by the editorial assistant. The first-round review took very long, but upon inquiry the EA quickly replied with some more information about the reason for the delay. Overall, the process went quite smoothly.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 15.4
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: The suggestions of the reviewers where interesting and adequated, I fully agree with them.
They rejected it but they provided to me with a list of journals with same style requirements so my paper could be resubmitted after nochanges in style.
I considere the time delayed to answer too long, I do not recommend to submmit there if you have time constraints, like for presenting a PhD dissertation.
Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 25.9
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Food Policy n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process is relatively fast. The editor was confident to mention that s/he desk rejects 80% of the manuscripts submitted.
Higher Education 30.4
weeks
42.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Youth Studies 24.7
weeks
24.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Youth and Society 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
International Journal of Lifelong Education 11.0
weeks
24.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Gender and Education 31.3
weeks
54.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Work, Employment and Society 22.0
weeks
46.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Sociology 20.0
weeks
25.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process was a bit slow but apart from this the process went smoothly. The reviewers comments were very helpful and I would submit to this journal any time again.
Science and Public Policy 7.6
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very good reviewers, speedy process, excellent handling. Reviewers comments really helped turning a manuscript with great potential but not sufficiently developed argument into one with coherent and clear message. Editor's work facilitated this.
Gerontologist 3.4
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The comments were quite short but to the point and they helped improve the quality of the paper.
De Economist 1.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This paper was part of a special issue, so it explains part of the speed with which is was handled.
Environmental Science and Policy 9.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Marine Geodesy 6.5
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall good quality of reviews. Reasonable and correct criticism and some positive remarks as well, so quite balanced. No major changes were required content wise.

Only the editing system was a bit of a mess. It did not accept my pdfs, I had to convert them to an older PDF version (v1.5) Submitting files was not so easy, because the system is locked when it thinks it has successfully received your files, even if that is not the case. As a result I had to sent a lot of emails with files to an assistant editor. Communication was good though, prompt and kind replies to my emails.
British Journal of Cancer n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 14.6
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The only problem was the delayed iterative process of selecting an academic editor for the MS. After that I was really very satisfied with both the quality and speed of the review process.
Alexandria: The Journal of National and International Library and Information Issues 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process and the editor's comments were helpful. Because the journal is UK based and my articles is very US government based, some things I took for granted needed further clarification. The editor (Monica Blake) responded to e-mails in a timely way and was very helpful.
Analysis n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Cancer Research 4.6
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 3 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: There was one review very poorly written and most comments could not be understood. It seems like a review written by a postdoc instead of a principal investigator who should be (or was) asked to do perform review. Senior Editor showed no interest for scientific discussion.
Molecular Pharmaceutics n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the paper I submitted was actually a direct response to a polemic attacking our own work quite personally, and published in the same journal, the response read "...your submission would be better suited for a more specialized journal". In other words they sought to block our side of the debate. After I appealed and pointed out that one could not BE more specialised than the journal that had published the original paper, I got "your paper in it's (sic) present form is a review of a review and is not acceptable as a scholarly review or perspective". In other words they do not want to hear criticisms of papers they have published if it does not suit their own views. I am utterly disgusted by them, and I would advise anyone to avoid submitting anything serious there. Ever.
Ethnic and Racial Studies 14.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: There were two reviewers with contradictory recommendations and different quality of comments. The weaker reviewer recommended rejection and the editor rejected the manuscript based on rather poor arguments. The stronger reviewer recommended revise and resubmit and all the points could have been addressed without problems.
Acta Politica 27.0
weeks
27.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It takes a lot to get the reviews.
Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 18.0
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor took a quick decision after submitting the revised version. The communication with the staff was efficient.