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
Thunderbird International Business Review 10.9 wks 17.1 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Everything went very smoothly. I was timely informed about the Editor's decisions and the time frame for feedback was more than reasonable.
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 17.9 wks 20.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Great reviews with extensive knowledge in the field (very narrow), however the time of first round of reviews was really long.
Journal of Surgical Research n/a n/a 10.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "With Editor" at Day 2. "Decision in Progress" from Day 2 to Day 10. Immediate rejection after 10 days - relatively long. Editor said paper wouldn't be interesting enough for their readers. Email said acceptance rate is 25%.
Cancer Research 5.4 wks n/a n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry 19.3 wks 27.1 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Language 30.3 wks 85.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: The first round took 6 months, which is a time span one can accept (and expect, with this journal). The second round was, unfortunately, a disaster. We had to contact our editors multiple times to ask about the progress. After half a year of our resubmission, we were told that we would get a decision within a month. Having waited 3 months, we asked again, being told this time that the editors were only waiting for a statistics reviewer. We waited 3 more months, wrote to the editors again, who then accepted our paper for publication, without sending us any review (not even a statistics review) or any substantive editorial comments. Quite a frustrating experience, albeit with a positive outcome.
Ibis 9.9 wks 20.0 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: This was submitted as a short note. We received one very positive review and one rather negative, containing lots of (deliberate?) misunderstandings. Both the associate editor and the editor weighed in with plenty of constructive comments (more so than those of the referees). The editor proposed that we should elaborate the manuscript substantially, despite exceeding the stipulated word limit for short notes. According to the manuscript system (ScholarOne) the manuscript was out for a second round of review. However, once we heard back on Jan 24 2017, it was from the editor, who suggested some further changes and let us give feedback on that. We did so the following day, and then received an accept – without further referee comments – a week later. Thus, while the quality of the referee reports were not great, the editors made a real effort.
New Phytologist 4.6 wks 5.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21.0 wks 35.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were very helpful and constructive and were accompanied by useful editorial comments. The revision was sent to one of the three reviewers for another evaluation, which was then positive and the paper was accepted with minor revisions. The editorial handling was transparent and fair. The whole process took an acceptable amount of time.
Journal of Applied Crystallography 5.3 wks 7.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Proofs took a long time, but they were obviously done with a great care. The communication with the editorial team was quick and effective.
Food Policy 28.2 wks n/a n/a 1 2 (moderate) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: It took this journal 11 months and two rounds of review to reach the conclusion that my article should be rejected. In the first round the managing editor conducted the review and suggested revisions. I painstakingly addressed her reviews which were decent. In the second round the editor found a new reviewer and their review was really terrible. It was very lazy and not did not seems fair at all - it made sweeping comments with no justification. It also attacked the research design which is something fundamental that obviously remained unchanged. The editor should never have sent the paper out for review and made us go through 11 months if there was a design flaw. This is my second terrible experience with this journal and I will definitely never submit there and will actively discourage any of my students and colleagues from submitting there.
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 4.4 wks n/a n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Despite the reviewers having only minor criticisms that could have been easily addressed, our manuscript was rejected; the reason given was that the findings were not significant enough. The review process was relatively quick and enquiries were answered promptly. Note however that this journal has a submission fee of 75 USD.
Journal of Neurology 4.4 wks 8.6 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: It is very good experience to publish in this journal.
BMC Research Notes Drawn back before first editorial decision after 157 days Drawn back
Motivation: I submitted the manuscript on August 2016 and in the beginning of December I sent a inquiry to the editorial office since I had not heard anything. They sent me back what looked like a form letter saying they were going to look into it. It was concerning that on the website it still showed "under editorial review." So in effect they never sent it out for review. I never heard anything back so I inquired again the beginning of January 2017. They sent me back what looked like a form letter saying they were going to look into it. It was concerning that on the website still showed "under editorial review." At that point I explained if I didn't hear back that it was sent out for review I would pull it and submit it elsewhere. I never heard anything back and it still remained under "editorial review." I pulled the manuscript and have submitted it elsewhere. I have published in BMC Public Health and BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth and had good experiences. As a result of this experience I will never submit an article nor review for BMC journals or recommend them to my colleagues.
Population, Space and Place 16.6 wks 30.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The process was long, but the paper was significantly improved. The comments were fair and extremely detailed.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory n/a n/a 8.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reason(s) for rejection were extremely vague, and didn't set this paper apart from others recently published in the same journal. I got the impression that the editor was biased against the work because it was a theoretical paper based on a theory they didn't like.
Grazer Philosophische Studien 24.0 wks n/a n/a 1 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The review was of good quality, critical but friendly in tone. Of course, I don't agree in every aspect with the offered critique. However, after six months I expected at least two reviews as a basis for rejection or acceptance. Therefore, in sum, the overall experience is more negative than positive.
Waste and Biomass Valorization 14.3 wks 14.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Wear 19.6 wks 20.4 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Note that this submission was for a special issue, so that I would not consider the processing times typical for the journal.
Journal of Applied Econometrics n/a n/a 6.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejected for lack of interest by editor.
Deep-Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 45.0 wks n/a n/a 1 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
FEMS Microbiology Ecology 5.7 wks n/a n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 15.7 wks 17.1 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Global Business and Organizational Excellence n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection due to subject not being compatible with journal's interests.
Gender, Work and Organization n/a n/a 25.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejected due to methodological approach incompatible with journal's interest.
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Short but adequate justification.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry n/a n/a 12.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Annals of Regional Science n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection due to article's subject, journals in other fields suggested.
Economic Development Quarterly n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast editorial rejection due to article's subject, journal suggestions offered.
American Journal of Public Health n/a n/a 4.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection because article was publicly available as working paper, violating submission rules.
Applied Economics n/a n/a 377.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Submission fee excessive, lack of response to status requests, article not sent to referees and editorial report justifying rejection was short, mediocre and wrong after holding the article for more than one year.
Journal of Time Series Analysis n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editorial rejection review was precise, knowledgeable and respectful.
Annals of Surgery 4.3 wks n/a n/a 3 4 (very good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Environmental Pollution 7.4 wks n/a n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Standards in Genomic Sciences 7.6 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were ok but could have been sent to reviewers knowing more about the scientific subjects - most critics were about adhering to journal standards, figures etc. First round of review took a bit too long.
Journal of Bacteriology 6.3 wks n/a n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: Rejection because of critics from 2 out of 3 reviewers. The reviews were detailed, although not everything was well understood methode-wise. One week less would have been ok, but 7 weeks for rejection is quite long and an annoying loss of time.
Computer Physics Communications 8.7 wks 14.1 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
International Journal of Bilingualism 9.1 wks 14.7 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Editor was balanced and reasonable. Review report was good. Second round was quite fast. The single less satisfactory aspect was that only one reviewer was consulted.
Central European Journal of Public Policy 16.1 wks 16.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: CEJPP was very professional in this handling my manuscript. The editor-in-chief even emailed me to notify me that the second reviewer had not delivered their report on time. The journal appointed a reviewer immediately and the entire process was very expedient.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14.9 wks 18.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very transparent with the editor being very open about the time schedule. The reviews I received were of good quality and helpful. The entire process was swift.