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
Biologicals n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Bioresource Technology 6.0 wks 6.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very fast. Reviewers comments was useful. Totally ol review process looks very well.
Regional Environmental Change 24.1 wks 27.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: The length of the first review was exceptionally long. However, the editors were responsive to my inquiries during the lengthy review
European Journal of Political Research 6.1 wks 11.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Limnology and Oceanography 8.1 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Maternal and Child Health Journal 13.6 wks 49.1 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 1 (bad) Accepted
Psychologie Francaise 60.8 wks 62.3 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Language Acquisition 16.0 wks 34.3 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Editor was balanced and appreciative. Quality of review reports was reasonable.
The editor apologised for the difficulty in finding reviewers (one or more who agreed to review did not actually return the review reports). Because of that, the process took much longer than their average turnaround times (which they usually report at the beginning of each year in an Editorial).
BMC Psychiatry 8.4 wks 18.1 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Prometheus 24.4 wks 24.6 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Slow initial handling – it took over a month to assign an editor to the submission and then another few weeks before this editor sent the manuscript to external reviewers. Lean and personal communication in later stages of the review process however makes up for some of the delays caused initially.
Psychological Medicine 4.4 wks 7.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Overall, an excellent, high-quality and speedy review process.
Erkenntnis 34.7 wks 34.7 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Conditional acceptance after 8 months waiting. Not sure what hold-up was. Only received comments from one referee as well.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.1 wks 3.1 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Information Systems Education 12.0 wks 13.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Very fast tournaround time. The editor is responsive and helpful. The reviews I received followed a standardized scheme, but could be more detailed and of higher quality.
Biomass and Bioenergy n/a n/a 91.2 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 3 months for a rejection without external reviewers
Cognition 18.7 wks 42.6 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Sociological Methods and Research 22.9 wks 22.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Rejected
Conservation Biology n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I felt the editor raised important points in rejecting the manuscript, even if I did not agree with them entirely. I used many of the comments to improve the manuscript, which helped get it published elsewhere. I appreciated that the editor shared my manuscript with a colleague to gain additional advice before making a decision.
Biological Invasions 12.9 wks 21.1 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: I felt the process was smooth and reasonably fast. I never felt like the waiting periods were excessive, and and in general the comments were relevant and constructive. Editors responded to queries quickly and were accommodating regarding timelines for returning revisions.
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 13.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Arid Environments 14.3 wks 14.5 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Ecography n/a n/a 4.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Zoology in the Middle East 1.0 wks 2.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Multiphase Flow n/a n/a 4.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Applied Physics Letters 1.6 wks 1.6 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The review was fast, and the APL system gives almost live data about the state of the manuscipt if one wishes to check. Though, it was obvious that one of the reviewers had not read the manuscript I am pleased how fast they were.
Coral Reefs n/a n/a 4.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick decision.
Global Ecology and Biogeography n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4.4 wks 4.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Molecular Ecology 10.6 wks 23.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Coral Reefs 3.6 wks 3.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The process was quite fast.
American Journal of Epidemiology 8.7 wks 13.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Anatomy 13.0 wks 15.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Good reviews which allowed the paper to be improved. My second experience with this journal and both times I found the review process to be fair.
Ecology 8.4 wks 9.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Management Studies 11.9 wks 37.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers sometimes has contradicting advice, editor handled that well. Editor gave good input for what to focus on and was very precise. Also very quick in replies, delays were due to authors' lack of time. Sometimes editor was a bit too much involved, because editor also went as far to use track changes to change certain wording in the paper (e.g. changing argue into contend)
Applicable Analysis 18.0 wks 18.1 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Frontiers in Psychology 4.7 wks 5.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Editorial processing was extremely fast. It took 3 days from submission to the assignment of associate editor, and 30 days to get the 1st round of rereview. Reviews endorsed the publication of my manuscript 8 days after a moderate revision, and in the same day, the status changed from provisional acceptance to abstract online. The user experience of the submitting system and review forum was also excellent.
Nature Communications n/a n/a 19.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
British Medical Journal n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I appreciated that the rejection was quick.
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 5.1 wks 5.1 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Reviews were mixed. One was fine, the other