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
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 24.7
weeks
24.7
weeks
n/a 20 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22.1
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 10 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: My paper was checked and reviewed by 10 different reviewers, and it was shocking for me to keep satisfy all of them at the first stage. 9 of reviewers recommended revisions (5 recommended acceptance), and only one reviewer advice rejection, and the paper was rejected.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I read several previous published papers in the topic of my paper in this journal. But, the paper was rejected by editor without any reason.
Building Simulation 18.1
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Nature Methods n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Buildings 4.9
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very responsive. Submission system is well implemented. Editing was very fast.
Social Science Research 22.7
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Unfortunately, one out of two reviewers did not understand the empirical approach at all (fixed effects). However, helpful comments regarding the theoretical framework were given by the editor.
Kyklos n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: To be honest, this is the most specific and constructive rejection letter I have ever seen. Kyklos editor introduced some papers in my research field, even gave summary and links. Furthermore, editor even recommended me specialized journal to submit my paper. Really appreciate that efforts ! Guide author very clearly and further the research, VERY HELPFUL!
Human Brain Mapping 0.3
weeks
0.3
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Applied Physics Letters 5.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The one reviewer comments were on an ad hoc basis. The editor and reviewer failed to provide a convincing reason to reject. No comments on the scientific merit of the paper. I will not even bother to submit a rebuttal because I know it will take more time.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 17.4
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Social Forces 12.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reivewers' comments sound as if there have been a few misunderstandings regarding the method used (fixed effects rather than OLS). Essentially the reviewers seem to be recommending to use the same method as we already did but obviously did not understand FE. For this reason, we were wondering if these methodological misunderstandings were a decisive factor in the negative editorial decision on our manuscript and if so, whether the editorial team would consider consulting another reviewer. However, the editorial team - unfortunatenly - declined to consider another reviewer.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Applied Poultry Research 10.0
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Physica Scripta 13.4
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Extremely helpful and proactive editor
Physical Review Letters 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: One of the referees showed that they did not understand how things work in nonlinear quantum optics and requested a type of analysis that had already been shown to not work in my manuscript. They noted that some of the results were remarkable, but even so should have been culled from the manuscript.
The other made demands that have never been made on any published quantum optics paper, seemingly not realising that a cavity chooses the modes of interest and only these need to be analysed. Their demand breaks with decades of practice. Even so, this referee recognised that all the PRL criteria except that of broad interest were satisfied.
The criterion of broad interest is, in general, interpreted very badly by referees. I suspect they confuse broad interest with their own interests. Looking at what actually gets published, it is impossible to form a clear picture of what this broad interest is.
European Sociological Review 9.6
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review process of about 2 months for each revision round. Nevertheless, after conditional acceptance 2 new reviewers assigned, who came up with some additional thoughts
Clinical Rheumatology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Socio-Economic Review 22.3
weeks
22.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: This wasn't the quickest review, and then we got two reviews, one of whom only gave the paper a cursory look ("I'm not convinced" without giving reasons), the other of which asked for a few technical clarifications. The editor did not mention how this translates into a rejection.
Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Before the submission of my paper to ADNDT, just one week I have received rejection. The editor told me that using of publicly available computer codes do not meet the journal criteria. Despite, I checked many published papers in the same time have the same codes which I used.
Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 5.3
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 14.3
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: After I received the first review (minor revisions), I contacted the editor to ask whether it was possible to take a decision regarding acceptance or rejection in the next round in less than a month time: I asked if, if I submit on July, 24, can I get a decision by half August? To my surprise, they answered yes. Finally, I resubmitted the revision on July, 13 and got an acceptance on July, 17. I really feel they stepped up the second round because of my request, which is excellent service. The faster timing will allow me to submit my PhD thesis on the date agreed with my supervisor, a target which I had already virtually given up.
Journal of Physics, D: Applied Physics 11.7
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The initial review process took very long. One of the reviewer has seemingly ignored the paper for several weeks. The paper was eventually accepted.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 26.7
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
European Heart Journal 7.9
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The time under review was quite long, but given the number and quality of reviews we received in the first round, the wait was justifiable.
Reviews in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture 15.7
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
BJU International 8.9
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: I felt that one of the reviewers has not even read the whole manuscript.
British Journal of Cancer n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4
(very good)
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The reviewers had thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve the quality of my manuscript.
British Journal of Cancer 14.6
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Bacteriology 2.4
weeks
2.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
mBio n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Rejection because of (few) critics from one reviewer, although the other reviewer suggested acceptance (with only minor changes). 2 months and half for rejection is too long and an annoying loss of time.
International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-Aided Engineering 4.4
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Review of Administrative Sciences 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers gave useful comments. Reviews were obtained after two months which is pretty fast compared to other journals.
PLoS ONE 17.4
weeks
69.4
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: After submission of the first revision, the editor was unavailable. Plos ONE did not find a new editor for about one year. So we decided to withdraw our manuscript and submit elsewhere.
Frontiers in Psychology 7.4
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review system. Very good reviews and very nice online interactive review forum.
PeerJ 2.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and nice review system. Easy and uncomplicated submission system.
BMJ Open 20.6
weeks
25.1
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were a little bit confusing, but overall review process was OK.
Geoforum 11.7
weeks
35.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was excellent and the editor was very responsive and timely. The reviewers really helped in making the paper better. The one drawback is that one of the reviewers took a long time to respond, which delayed the process.
Quaternary Science Reviews 8.7
weeks
8.8
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted