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
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 0.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The answer came exactly three hours after submission
ISME Journal 7.4 wks 14.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Molecular Ecology n/a n/a 9.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Nature Medicine n/a n/a 6.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process is fast. Even though the manuscript is rejected by editors directly, the response from the editor is quite reasonable and convincing.
Nature Communications 10.1 wks 10.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The review process is quite long. The editor decided to send out the manuscript for review after two weeks upon initial submission. We received the comments from reviewers 8 weeks later. It seems that the whole process is time consuming and the manuscript tracking system is clumsy.
Terra Nova 4.3 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Drawn back
Journal of Differential Geometry 20.6 wks 20.6 wks n/a 0 n/a 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: Taking nearly 6 months to reject a paper without even a referee report seems ridiculous to me.
Mathematische Annalen 25.1 wks 25.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Geometric and Functional Analysis 2.3 wks 2.3 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 38.9 wks 38.9 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
International Mathematics Research Notices 10.6 wks 12.3 wks n/a 1 2 (moderate) 4 (very good) Accepted
Manuscripta Mathematica 17.6 wks 29.4 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Central European Journal of Mathematics 15.3 wks 15.3 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Journal of Algebraic Geometry 1.7 wks 1.7 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 4 (very good) Rejected
Mathematische Annalen n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology 5.9 wks 8.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Takes a bit of time from submission to allocation of manuscript number but very quick review and response
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18.4 wks 26.3 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: Review process took too long. Second round was not needed. Editor should have been able to make decision with our response to the first round.
Antiquity 13.3 wks 13.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Review process was relatively quick (although it missed the editor's target of 2 months by 50%). Once the article was accepted it awaited publication for another 11 months.
Biomaterials 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer comments were pertinent, well-documented and demonstrated good knowledge of the field.
PLoS ONE 9.4 wks 9.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer critiques were extensive and well-documented. Reviewer feedback was useful in significantly revising and restructuring our manuscript before resubmission elsewhere.
Animal Behaviour 4.3 wks 8.3 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Hormones and Behavior n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Animal Ecology 6.6 wks 6.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Ecology n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Computers in Biology and Medicine 4.1 wks 4.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Quick reviewing process with nice suggestions of the reviewers in the meantime that have contributed to improve final quality of the work
Aquaculture 2.9 wks 2.9 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 4 (very good) Rejected
Clinical Interventions in Aging 3.6 wks 4.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Gait and Posture 16.0 wks 22.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Drawn back
Journal of Hazardous Materials 12.6 wks 12.7 wks n/a 0 n/a 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Minor corrections to the typesetting of equations took over one month for the publishers to correct. Response to questions about article status very slow. The stated expected turnaround of 4 months for peer review seems overly long - I received a request from the same journal to review an article within 3 weeks.
Antiviral Research 4.6 wks 9.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers suggested nice comments.
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 (good) Accepted (im.)
Diabetologia 4.7 wks 12.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Endocrinology 5.6 wks 9.6 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Very nice journal regarding choosing reviewers and their comments.
Geographical Research 22.7 wks 24.6 wks n/a 4 5 (excellent) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: I made significant changes to my original manuscript in response to comments from three peer reviewers (all supportive of my paper - recommending minor revisions to the structure and some additional references) and Special Issue editors (who were not supportive of my paper). The Special Issue editors did not accept my revised manuscript. However, the editor of the journal did like the paper so he recommended some further changes and asked that I consider resubmitting. I made these changes and resubmitted, wherein it was sent to new reviewers. These reviewers were also supportive of the paper, but suggested further extensive changes, many of which contradicted suggested changes from the first round of reviews and comments from the editor. Final result was the drafting of three (very different) versions of the same paper, all receiving different feedback. I gave up at this point. I was very dissatisfied with this process.
Energy Research and Social Science 9.6 wks 24.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient review process. The only higher ranking energy journal I have written for where I believe the editors take a sincere interest in the papers that are accepted for publication.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 18.4 wks 38.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Receiving reviews was very slow. However, the editorial team was efficient in providing feedback. The review comments (3 reviewers) were all high quality and contributed to an increase in the quality of the paper.
Studies in Higher Education n/a n/a 19.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was rejected for being out of scope. Very friendly and positive response received from editor. Very prompt response.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 3.6 wks 4.6 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient journal. Clear communications. Peer review comments were brief and added value.
Australian Journal of Public Administration 19.4 wks 24.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The submission was a short commentary paper. I believe the review process should have been shorter considering this.
Renewable Energy 4.4 wks 4.4 wks n/a 0 n/a 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: My paper was submitted as part of a Special Issue. I did not receive any peer review feedback.