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
Annals of Botany n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oecologia n/a n/a 21.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Annales de la Société Entomologique de France/International Journal of Entomology 26.0 wks 32.5 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Ecological Entomology 13.0 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Common Market Studies 7.6 wks 7.6 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Motivation: Very responsive.
Neuropsychopharmacology 5.9 wks 5.9 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Addiction Biology 9.3 wks 18.6 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Earth and Planetary Science Letters n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6.1 wks 6.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Bulletin of Volcanology 20.4 wks 40.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Kyklos 18.3 wks 18.3 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were fair, but were very much oriented towards mainstream economiics.
Journal of Lie Theory 50.9 wks 50.9 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The report was useful and very detailed but it took one year
Geology 6.9 wks 6.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Tetrahedron Letters 2.9 wks 4.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Tetrahedron 4.7 wks 5.4 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Green Chemistry 6.6 wks 6.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 2.1 wks 2.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Journal of European Social Policy 18.0 wks 18.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were not very connected to the topic and the remarks could have been dealt with, but apparently a rejection was recommended.
Ageing and Society 9.4 wks 9.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: Two reviewers were divided and editor did not want to advise a major revision of the paper.
PLoS ONE 12.1 wks 14.1 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: It took a long time to assign Editor. Once Editor was assigned, the process was much quicker.
Scientific Reports 10.4 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Oikos n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oecologia n/a n/a 24.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I was very disappointed that the journal sat with the paper for over 3 weeks before alerting us that it would not be sent out to review. I understand limited space is an issue and that editors need to be selective in what articles they will send out to over burdened reviewers, but an immediate rejection should take place in under a week so as to not waste the authors time.
India Review Drawn back before first editorial decision after 38 days Drawn back
Motivation: After submission, 'Editorial Manager' (the submission and tracking portal that this journal uses) updated the status from 'Awaiting Assignment' to 'With Editor' in one day. However, the article then remained with the editor for 5 weeks, and despite two polite emails to the editor, we did not hear back about whether or not the article would even be sent to peer review. On calling the editorial office (this is acceptable in India, though probably not in many other places) the editor told us that the next several issues were full and we'd have to wait at least another month before he could make a decision on whether or not to even send it out for peer review. 9 weeks for a potential desk rejection seemed like a lot, so we withdrew.
Journal of Global Health 12.4 wks 12.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The editorial assistant was very friendly and helpful along the way, the reviews were good and spot on and overall handling time was relatively brief. I have however got to criticize the submission website. It crashed a number of times while I submitted my manuscript resulting in having to start afresh. Further, it is clunky and not intuitive and generally a huge pain to operate. I was grateful to just be able to submit the revised document via e-mail and not to have to go through the whole pain of the system again.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.0 wks 6.9 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: We recently choose PNAS as target journal for a study that represented almost 10 years of work and that we considered important. The manuscript submission on the journal's website was straightforward and all exchanges with the editorial staff very professional.
Our three external reviewers made highly constructive suggestions and the editor appraised the study as "elegant, persuasive and appropriate for publication". From this experience, we can highly recommend PNAS for papers destined to a broad audience.

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 (good) Accepted (im.)
Communications in Computational Physics 3.1 wks 9.9 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The handling of the manuscript was, at first, very satisfactory. We received a high quality report from the reviewer and the overall time spent in stage of reviewing and revising the manuscript was comparably short.
However, after being notified about the acceptance of the manuscript in September, finalizing the paper in the production stage took relatively long. Three weeks until the source files had been approved, four weeks until the first proof was sent, nine weeks until the second round of proofs was sent and another three weeks until a corrected version was finally sent into production. All in all, this adds up to almost five months after the manuscript has been accepted. In total, we expect a delay of six months until the article will finally be published.
During this time of putting the manuscript into production the communication with the editorial office has been scarce and direct replies to our queries have not been received.
These circumstances unfortunately impair the otherwise very positive experience with the journal.
Biology and Philosophy 13.0 wks 13.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Great comments from competent reviewers. Editor was very responsible and quick to act. Excellent.
Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast response with rejection due to lack of subject fit.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 10.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 13.0 wks 26.0 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The comments of the reviewers were fair and useful. However, the review process took a long time, as did the publication of a printed version
PLoS ONE 21.1 wks 21.6 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The time to first review was very slow, especially for a journal that advertises itself as accelerating science. However, given the speed at which the manuscript was processed after resubmission, the delay may have been on the reviewers end more than the journal. One of the reviews had very little substance and was not very helpful but the second was generally good.
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine n/a n/a 15.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I missed more information on the actual reason for its rejection, but I appreciate promptly providing this information to allow submitting the manuscript to another journal without delaying too much publication times
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the editor stated that the manuscripts was of interest to this journal's community, it was rejected on the grounds of: "We are receiving far more submissions than we can currently publish and therefore have to reject many good papers". This journal has published many similar articles on the same topic (many of which are of lower scientific merit in my opinion). Rejecting a manuscript based on space constraints rather than a sound scientific reason is disappointing.
Acta Pharmacologica Sinica n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: i work hardly to publish my firs paper in this journal, unlucky it was not event send to review..
Atmospheric Pollution Research 4.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Very fast reviews, with middle-quality reports. I would recommend this journal to a colleague only if a fast publication is necessary.
Urban Climate Drawn back before first editorial decision after 273 days Drawn back
Motivation: After more than 6 months, reviewers were still not assigned. Furthermore, it was almost impossible to have a feedback from the editor. Very bad.
Environmental Technology 13.0 wks 14.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Long time (3 months) for the first review step, but useful feedback from reviewers.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 4.0 wks 8.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: High quality reviews provided in less than 1 month, even if generally 2-3 review&resubmit cycles are necessary. The manuscript quality was strongly improved, and the overall reviewing process was quiet fast. Strongly recommended.