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
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 29.7 wks 29.7 wks n/a 1 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Machine Vision and Applications 26.0 wks 26.0 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers did not do a good job on reviewing this manuscript. The review level was that of a C class conference.
Food Policy 6.4 wks 13.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Progress in Development Studies 17.4 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: We received reviewers'comments at the beginning of January. If the editor was positive with the paper, one of the reviewers was so angry (maybe because he had done the review during the winter festive season) that he wrote only two short lines recommending rejection.
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Europe-Asia Studies 34.7 wks 34.7 wks n/a 3 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Europe-Asia Studies was my worst experience in publication. I waited almost 8 months for reviewers'comments and the paper received rejection. Although one reviewer was fair and recommended further revision, the other two reviewers asked only for citing their works. Awful journal !
Dialectica 19.0 wks 27.3 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Philosophical Studies 22.3 wks 27.9 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Environment and Planning, A 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Sociologia Ruralis 4.3 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: One of my worst experiences with the peer-review process. Although the turn-around time was fast (1 month), reviewers' suggestions were too general. One of the reviewers was either not an English speaker or he was really drunk when writing the review. I hardly tried to understand his suggestions but it was in vein.
Philosophical Studies 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10.8 wks 41.2 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Decent referees, but editor was not responsive. Editor had decided to publish after second round of revisions was provided, but never told me s/he had decided to publish until five to six months later when I emailed them personally asking for an update. As a result I wasn't able to list this paper as forthcoming on my CV for the job market that year...
Journal of Philosophy 34.7 wks 34.7 wks n/a 0 n/a 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: Eight months under review. Rejection with no review reports and no explanation given by the editors.
Ecology Letters 5.7 wks 6.7 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Rejected
Asian Journal of Control 9.6 wks 35.6 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I would like to thank all people of the Asian Journal of Control for your kind cooperation.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 21.0 wks 22.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: This is my second publication in ASDE. As was the case with the first one, the review process was, overall, very good experience. The initial reviewers made very useful comments and suggestions that helped a lot to improve the work. The subsequent rounds of review were mostly textual or editorial in nature. They were dragged on to ''R3'' due to specific journal requirements, some of which I consider a little strange. An example is the requirement to have a Figure (photo) in the Introduction Section of the manuscript. While subsequent schedules for re-evaluating revised manuscripts were great in their timing, I strongly suggest to improve on the time between initial submission and first review result. My first manuscript with ASDE also suffered from delayed initial review.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7 wks 11.0 wks n/a 5 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 7.3 wks 11.9 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Asian Journal of Control 10.8 wks 19.5 wks n/a 4 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Science and Engineering Ethics 8.0 wks 9.1 wks n/a 4 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I have been writing paper for journals for 46 years, and this is one of the best experiences I have had. The referees' comments were extremely useful and I received them within in one month of submission. After I made the revisions I felt my paper was much improved. The whole procedure was very efficient. The website was standard and easy to use, but when I messed up the submission of the revised paper (my fault entirely), I got help immediately that solved the problem.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 11.6 wks 11.6 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Philosophical Studies 4.7 wks 4.7 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was sent to a revier. But all the reviewer said was "This submission is not sufficiently clear or well argued for publication in Philosophical Studies."
Elife n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
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.)
Philosophical Quarterly 8.6 wks 8.6 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Motivation: It didn't take long. The referee raised some important objections to my argument.
Science n/a n/a 16.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Passed to Advisor stage before editorial rejection. Slower than usual decision due to holiday period.
Neuron 3.9 wks 3.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Disagreement among reviewers led to very lengthly 9-month process of multiple reviews and repeated rebuttles. In the end, 2 positive reviewers and 1 negative reviewer, the editor sided with the negative and in the end the paper was rejected. However, during review periods decisions were reached fairly quickly (3-4 weeks) and editors were very communicative.
Nature Neuroscience n/a n/a 29.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 4 weeks for editorial decision not to send for external review was way too lengthy.
Pattern Analysis and Applications 26.3 wks 26.3 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The review time was long, yet I only received reviews from one reviewer. The review was not detailed and the majority of it was a summary of what was presented in the paper. The editor held back from making a decision for 2 months and although the reviewer comments were not negative, the editor decided to reject the paper without providing any reasons.

Over the past 6 years this has been the worst journal I have dealt with. I feel like they wasted my time...
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 10.8 wks 10.8 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers comments did not help me to improve the paper. Their comments indicated a possible lack of understanding of the problem, methodology and the solution. The editor who supervised the review, followed the reviewers decision.
Research Policy 20.0 wks 20.0 wks n/a 0 n/a 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The mail informing about the decision mentioned that my paper is not suitable for Research Policy and wished me luck in submission with other journals. No reasons were given. 20 weeks is too long a time for such a comment.
IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 38.7 wks 53.9 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Handling Editor-in-Chief changed during the review process (8 months after 1st submission) and thus, there was another set of new reviews which was unnecessary. EiC should've completed the decision process before stepping down. Not very professional I must say.
NeuroImage 6.9 wks 6.9 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: Neuroimage (NI) is arguably the top journal in the area of Neuroimaging. Although my proposed methodology was appreciated, the writing style was suggested for further improvement. I didn't see any strong negative comments from the reviewers. I guess NI is focused on maintaining a very high rejection rate.
Arthritis and Rheumatology 13.6 wks 14.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: The rejection letter to the resubmitted manuscript, which was revised according to reviewer comments after the first round of peer review, stated that the subject matter was not of interest to the broader readership of the journal.This being the case, it would have been preferable if the manuscript had been rejected immediately after first being submitted to the journal which would have saved us at least 6 months. Now we have to begin the process of submission again with another journal.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 18.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability n/a n/a 54.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Outlook on Agriculture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 (moderate) Accepted (im.)
Annales Henri Poincare n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Development Policy Review 16.3 wks 36.9 wks n/a 1 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Global Food Security 13.7 wks 13.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted