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
ACS Nano 3.4 wks 4.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Review process was quick and overall manuscript quality is improved after the reviewer's comments.
Work, Aging and Retirement 9.1 wks 13.4 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 11.1 wks 11.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Science n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Current Biology n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS Biology n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Physical Review Applied n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Analytical Chemistry 5.7 wks 8.1 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: My only complaint is the long time in review, much worse than other ACS journals in my experience.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7 wks 13.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
The ANZIAM Journal 11.9 wks 24.3 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Scientometrics 9.4 wks 9.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: The review quality is good enough and they suggested good suggestions for improving the manuscript.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 46.0 wks 46.0 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected
Motivation: 7 months waiting to receive one 150 word and one 225 word review, followed by 3 months for an editorial decision which only came after extended chasing up with the publisher.
Human Brain Mapping 13.3 wks 27.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Nature Structural and Molecular Biology n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Demography 9.0 wks 9.0 wks n/a 4 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Scientometrics 7.0 wks 9.4 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The timing for the review process and the quality of the review itself exceeded all expectations.
Frontiers in Psychology 9.3 wks 12.3 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: A specific problem in the Frontiers review system: At any time of the review process an (anonymous) reviewer has the right to withdraw from the process. If the reviewer does not withdraw, his or her name will be published if the manuscript gets published. The names of reviewers withdrawing will not be published.

In our case the reviewer withdrew after asking for major changes in the manuscript, but still unsatisfied - "not convinced" - by the results we had submitted. The manuscript was finally accepted, but all the major changes were kept regardless the unsatisfied and unfruitful "discussion" process between the reviewer and the authors. In our view many of the changes in the manuscript were needless.
It is difficult for reviewers to prohibit manuscripts they don't like, but using the above mentioned procedure they at least can urge the authors to include citations of minor relevance and to add arguments that are not constructive.
Nature Communications 13.1 wks 52.3 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: The second round of reviews was made because one of the reviewers never answered to our reviewed paper. We pointed out from the beginning that this reviewer had a potential conflict of interest because he pointed out as an argument against the publication of our paper a preprint that was clearly overlapping. The reaction of the editor was very slow (note the number of weeks of the second round), and we wrote several times to the editor asking for explanations on the delayed answer. Finally, he recognized that the referee was no answering and he decided to sent the manuscript to another referee, with the subsequent delay. But the worst thing is that, after this long process, our paper was finally published in the same number that the preprint that the referee that never answered was referring to. You can extract your own conclusions about the opacity of this process.
Furthermore, after acceptance, the paper took four rounds of proofreadings because most of the equations had errors (that our manuscript didn't have). Given the prize of the journal this is absolutely unacceptable, and we still have no complete confidence in that the paper is 100% free of errors after all this process.
Chinese Physics, B 14.9 wks 17.3 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
The World Economiy 26.0 wks 30.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 13.6 wks 17.6 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Nature Communications 8.7 wks 19.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript was significantly improved due to suggestions from reviewers and Editor. I was thankful to receive such high-quality suggestions. However, the entire manuscript handling process takes too long! For each round the manuscript is sent out for review, I waited for approximately 2-2.5 months to hear back from Editor (manuscript was sent to reviewers twice). After acceptance notice, I waited 6 weeks to finally see manuscript in online print (returned comments on proofs within 3 days). For the ~5500EUR publication fee, I would expect swifter turn around.
European Journal of Physics 9.6 wks 13.1 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and encouraging review process. Reviewer comments were most helpful and educational.
Spine Deformity 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers comments were helpful in some ways. However there was a worrying lack of statistical knowledge (the request I used of mean and standard deviation when the data was not normally distributed) which is concerning.
Journal of Immunology 4.9 wks 9.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Journal of Population Economics n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Brain Structure and Function n/a n/a 152.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Five months (!!) after sending the manuscript to this journal we got it back rejected with the comment that they could not find any reviewers. Very strange, especially since the next journal we sent the same manuscript to found three reviewers within a couple of weeks...
Journal of Pediatrics n/a n/a 6.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Extremely fast rejection process. This was great, we did not think they would accept our paper since the research area is very narrow, but still wanted to try and were thankful for their quick reply which made it possible for us to send it to another journal already the week after.
PLoS ONE 6.4 wks 10.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 3.1 wks 4.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Fast Review.
Rejection by editor took 4-7 days sometime short
If reviewed decisions will be given in 20-30 days
Journal of Materials Chemistry 3.3 wks 5.1 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Journal of Material Chemistry A has quick response good manuscript tracking system and professional reviewer. In mots of the cases if they review the manuscript the will give you decision within 20-30 days. If the editor rejects the manuscript it may take 4-7 days.
Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Diseases 3.0 wks 3.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Infection 6.7 wks 8.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 38.4 wks 38.4 wks n/a 1 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Musculoskeletal Care 1.0 wks 1.4 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Fast and polite handling of submission, no online submission system exists.
European Sociological Review 15.0 wks 15.0 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
European Sociological Review 23.4 wks 23.4 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
Clinical Infectious Diseases 13.1 wks 13.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The decision was not in line wth the reviewers comments. The reviewers seemed to suggest some revisions but seemed interested. The journal rejected citing "quality of the manuscript, its appropriateness for the journal, and its level of interest to our general readership" and suggested transfer to a sister journal Open Forum for Infectious Diseases
Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics n/a n/a 0.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Tuberculosis n/a n/a 6.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)