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
European Journal of Applied Mathematics 32.5 wks 37.9 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: It took a long time to obtain the review, but it was very thorough and useful. After submitting the changes, the editor requested some minor stylistic changes which again improved the manuscript. Overall, the communication with the journal has been effective.
Studies in Language 15.2 wks 16.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast for a linguistics journal and good, thorough reviews.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 20.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reasonably fast, but a bit disappointing that they had us go through the Initial Quality Check for figures using this dreaded Editorial Manager system three times (a big time investment) — before telling us, two weeks later, that they had barely looked at the manuscript and rejected it anyway for "not having the broad appeal needed for PNAS".
PLoS ONE 8.0 wks 8.3 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: According to the editor, the reason the first round of reviewing took more than PLOS ONE's promised 'month on average' was that it was the summer season. Response after the first inquiry was very fast, and a final decision was made only a few days after resubmission.
Human Relations n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor's decision was made very quickly, within a week. I received a couple of constructive points for improvement.
Organization Studies n/a n/a 42.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the paper was rejected, the feedback I received from the editor was very constructive, elaborate, and helpful for further developing the paper.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 6.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer made multiple unprofessional comments that were many times scientifically incorrect and advised to reject. The second reviewer described the paper as "well-written" and asked for minor revisions. The third reviewer also requested only specific revisions. The editors comments referred only to the first reviewers "strongly suggested rejection" opinion and rejected the manuscript based on this with no option of providing a rebuttal against the incorrect claims and statements or opportunity to revise.
Food Microbiology 49.9 wks 49.9 wks n/a 0 n/a 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: There was no option to select "no response received" for this survey. After waiting almost an entire year and constantly contacting the journal for a status update they were unable to inform me of the reason for the delay. Eventually I withdrew my submission and submitted elsewhere as I could not afford to wait even longer with no response at all. It took another month or more just to get confirmation of the withdraw and no reason or apology was given.
Oman Medical Journal 60.8 wks 91.1 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Drawn back
Motivation: My manuscript was accepted in the middle of submission process then suddenly I received further request of major changes. I didn't revise it but I withdrew the paper and submitted it to a higher impact journal in its original state prior to first admission and was accepted in 5 weeks with minor changes requested and done. The most annoying experience with OMJ is that the reviewers sent comments that were not scientifically sound and insisted to be done.
Tertiary Education and Management 4.0 wks 4.7 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The editor was very professional
Higher Education Quarterly 6.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Motivation: The editor was polite and efficient. The quality of the reviews was very good and made me realize that my paper was not.
BMC Biology 6.0 wks 7.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Overall experience with the review process was very positive. Not only the comments from the Referees but also from the Editorial Staff were very constructive and indeed helped us to improve our manuscript. The relatively long time for the first round of revision might be explained by the festivities over Christmas and New Year. The only point that I suggested the Journal to improve was the system for submission of the files of the manuscript.
BMC Psychiatry 5.0 wks 8.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Psychology, Health and Medicine 19.0 wks 19.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer's reports were quite positive, they suggested only a few minor changes. However, the final decision was still rejection without giving any explanation. I think it is not quite fair after 4,5 months of waiting.
Organizational Dynamics n/a n/a 8.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process was very surprising for my coauthorand I because we wrote the article following the structure of the article in the journal and we thought that our work couldfit with the journal. We asked to the journal a more precise explanation respect the evaluation done respect our work but they answer that it was not possible because they receive "hundreds of submissions" and their policy is to first screen articles as to fit in terms of our aims and objectives before going to the next step of developmental reviews. Our article not reached this second step to give us more feedback.
Business Horizons 0.1 wks 1.0 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: My coauthor and I had a very great experience with Business Horizons.
We received a prompt reply and clear suggestions to improve our work.
We accepted the majority of the suggestions and explained why we refused some of them. The answer from the editor was very kind, quick and clear.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 3.0 wks 4.0 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Ecological Economics 10.0 wks 14.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were critical, and their comments, criticism, and suggestions actually helped improve the manuscript a lot. The editor was very helpful too. So we thanked them in our acknowledgement section.
Insect Conservation and Diversity 6.0 wks 10.3 wks n/a 4 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: review process takes too much time
Traffic Injury Prevention 7.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Drawn back
Motivation: The paper went through three rounds of review by 2 clueless reviewers, one of whom was probably the editor. One reviewer went completely wild in the first round about how invalid one of our methods was (and obviously didn't know what it was); after we defended it the same reviewer acted like an expert in that method and accused us of not applying it carefully (my co-authors are world experts in the method!). The second reviewer (who was probably the editor) didn't read past the introduction. After two rounds of review, the second reviewer finally read the paper and raised totally off-the-wall objections. The editor finally accepted the paper conditional on us making changes that would produce an invalid analysis, so we withdrew it instead.
American Journal of Epidemiology 5.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The paper was reviewed by two knowledgeable reviewers who read the paper carefully and had good suggestions for improvement.
Personnel Review 2.3 wks 10.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The comments were fair and improved the quality of my paper. I sent my manuscript July 2nd and got the response on November 2nd and for the second round sent Dec. 11th and got the response on Feb 11th. It seems the journal follows the deadlines strictly (4 months for the first round and two months for the second round). The process was really smooth although the comments were challenging.
Employee Relations 16.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer had advised rejection and one reviewer advised major review. The editor decided to reject. The first review was a hasty one.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 35.0 wks 105.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: It took about 3 years and 3 rounds of review. I guess reviewers were different in each time. After all paper get rejected. No specific argument was made at the end. Although death of the editor was responsible for part of the delay but anyway handling the issue of my paper was not fair (as I perceive it).
Journal of Public Economic Theory 34.7 wks 52.1 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Drawn back
Motivation: the editor and the associate editor seemed to have difficulty communicating, with each other and with me
Journal of Public Economics 36.9 wks 71.6 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: it was a lengthy process, but the evaluation was fair, informed and useful
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 30.4 wks 30.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Journal of Happiness Studies 26.0 wks 26.0 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Science and Technology Studies 16.3 wks 21.1 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: I had three reviewers with completely different comments. Therefore, it took me a while to make the changes. But after re-submission, my paper was not send to the reviewers again and it was rejected instead. The editor gave me three reasons for it, i.e. three points that had been requested by the reviewers. But I did not agree at all, because I changed these three points. My impression was that my paper was read very superficially. I complained to the editor and asked whether my paper could be reread. But the editor answered that the decision was final. I found the review process very unfair because the superficial reading was the reason why my paper was not sent to the reviewers again. I would have preferred that the reviewers had judged themselves.
Current Psychology 1.6 wks 1.6 wks n/a 0 n/a 4 (very good) Accepted
European Sociological Review 19.5 wks 49.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Rejected
AIDS and Behavior 17.4 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The journal sat on my paper for four months before it was rejected. Several times I attempted to contact the editor for an update without success. Finally, after over two months of silence, I received an email saying the following:

"I'm sorry. I'm a bit behind on decisions. I hope to get caught up soon. Thanks for letting me know.

This email was unhelpful. The journal then sat on my paper for another two months before rejecting it for reasons I do not understand, given the reviewers seemed to enjoy it and their critical feedback was mild.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17.4 wks 26.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The editor clearly wants a speedy process, and thanked the authors for resubmitting quickly.
Technovation 8.7 wks 8.8 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Addiction n/a n/a 30.4 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Research Evaluation 13.0 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Process went smooth, reviews of high quality. Overall process from submission to acceptance took 7 months.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 4.3 wks 6.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: It was an excellent review process. I highly recommend this journal for researchers in the financial services marketing.
Optics Express n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 19.5 wks 19.5 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: It took one month just for the paper to be assigned to an editor. Then, three and a half months later, we receive the rejection notice with just two very scant reviews that evidenced very little effort from the reviewers, some of whose comments actually contradict factual data in the paper. Either we presented the paper very badly or they did not bother reading it thoroughly.