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
Astronomical Journal 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The review process for my paper took very long to find an adequate referee, but the referee itself took little time time with the paper, and deemed it well written but uninteresting for the journal.
Experimental Astronomy 11.9 wks 14.7 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing time was perhaps longish, but the review was thorough, and improved the paper. Part of the reviewing time was during Christmas holidays, and I took as much time to implement the changes, so I think it is justified. Editorial changes were very straightforward to implement.
Geoforum 8.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: We are very disappointed about our submission to this journal. Instead of sending our revised version to reviewers again, the editor decided to reject our manuscript after three months of waiting, without any descent comments why so. He/she referred to 'substantial issues' but refused to specify these.
Mobilities 13.0 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Communication with the journal was very efficient, and the peer-review process was rather quick. We are very satisfied about our submission to this journal.
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 23.9 wks 23.9 wks n/a 1 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Only one reviewer, quite short and poorly done. There was no criticism from the reviewer that could not have been addressed by a clarification of a very minor revision.
No other review report was provided.
Internet Research n/a n/a 21.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Memetic Computing 13.0 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer's comment were insightful, and the requests were sensible. The process was relatively fast, for a journal in my domain. Overall, I am satisfied.
Psychometrika 3.1 wks 5.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Health Economics 21.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Very thorough referee reports; both referees helped to improve the paper by linking to related literature.
Kyklos 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.)
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 13.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Philosophical Quarterly n/a n/a 10.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Public Affairs Immediately accepted after 26.0 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I think 6 months is too much time to accept a manuscript without external review
Journal of Power Sources 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected as the reviewers find the results not adequate to a journal that deals with actual power source. The reviewers contend that, given the depth of the Microbiology-related discussion in the manuscript, it was more suitable for a general Biotechnology Journal. I think the reviewers were correct and the Editor decision was the right one.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering 8.7 wks 9.0 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The Editor handles the submission very well. I strongly recommend this journal to those that work with the quantitative aspect of Biotechnology.
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 1.9 wks 1.9 wks n/a 0 n/a 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Quick reply. My paper was the logical update of another paper already publicised on the same journal. Therefore, I believe it was coherent to continue publishing on the same open topic
Global Networks 15.2 wks 19.5 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
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 2.9 wks 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 13.0 wks 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 39.1 wks 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 11.0 wks 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 13.0 wks 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 13.0 wks 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 7.0 wks 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