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
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 13.6 wks 13.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 13.3 wks 21.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 6.1 wks 6.1 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Geophysical Research 5.3 wks 5.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Geophysical Research 12.1 wks 13.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Personality and Individual Differences 6.3 wks 6.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 30.3 wks 46.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: The process was quite slow. The first review round took over half a year which is way too long. The editor had a good touch and the reviewers were knowledgeable.
Geophysical Research Letters 3.3 wks 3.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I was pleased with the quick but detailed and useful reviews I received from GRL, and the editor was quite efficient in handling the manuscript. Overall a very positive experience.
International Ophthalmology 21.9 wks n/a n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers did not understand the methods and techniques described in the paper.But they still took 4 months for the decision.The first revew should come witin 34 days.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science 5.7 wks 9.6 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Nice experience: very detailed and prompt reviews by knowledgeable experts, supported by a very good communication with the editor. After acceptance, the paper was proofread by the publisher (Taylor & Francis), improving the style. The only downside is that it took some time that the paper appears published online, more than it is usually the case with other publishers. But overall the whole process was quicker than I expected.
Erkenntnis 37.4 wks 42.9 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: 9 months spent reviewing. I received a report only from referee #3.
Journal of Biogeography n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Pest Management Science 6.3 wks n/a n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The comments received from reviewers were mostly helpful, but the reason for the rejection (instead of revise and resubmit) was not given.
Astrophysical Journal 6.9 wks 12.0 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research 2.4 wks 7.1 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Philosophy of Science 13.4 wks n/a n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Lubrication Science 47.7 wks 47.7 wks n/a 0 n/a 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: I got my manuscript accepted without any need for revisions. However, it took 11 months for Lubrication Science to arrive to this verdict. I sent emails to the Associated Editor three times to complain about the long review duration. She would send the apologizing messages back every time.
Sedimentary Geology 5.0 wks 5.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Social Science and Medicine 14.6 wks 22.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
JAMA Psychiatry n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 5.3 wks 9.3 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Nucleic Acids Research 2.6 wks 3.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Molecular Biology and Evolution 9.6 wks n/a n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: Reasonable comments but slow, probably due to the editors.
Manuscrito 33.0 wks n/a n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Rejected
Philosophical Psychology 13.0 wks 23.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: - receiving the reviews after three months is okay, I think.
- some delays were caused by myself as it took me some time to improve my text.
- the reviews were good, most of them included very good comments and questions, the tone was citical but friendly.
- as far as I know, the text was reviewed by philosophers as well as by psychologists
Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters 2.9 wks 2.9 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Diversity and Distributions n/a n/a 10.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Internet and Higher Education 5.0 wks n/a n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
iForest 8.0 wks 13.3 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Geoforum 8.4 wks 15.6 wks n/a 4 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: I believe it was a relatively quick process, and the comments of the reviewers made sense.
Central European Journal of Public Policy 4.7 wks 7.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: In overall it was quite good collaboration. The communication between author and editor was on time, no delays in answers. The reviews were helpful and constructive. The manuscript submission system was very helpful in order to provide the account for the funding institution.
Philosophical Psychology 24.1 wks 44.4 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Journal of Theological Studies 7.1 wks 7.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The journal editor was prompt and courteous, and the review process was particular speedy—less than 2 month, which is almost unheard of in the guild. The review was on the brief side and not particularly conducive to meaningful revisions (more along the lines of comments rather than concrete suggestions), but still helpful. A downside of the publishing (rather than the review) process is the fact that the journal has only two issues per year, so the pipeline is incredibly long (it can take up to 1.5 yrs for an article to appear).
PLoS ONE 15.0 wks 18.9 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Motivation: Lost editor during summer, although PLoS stated that the new editor would take delay into account, it stool took 15 weeks before we had an outcome. Review reports were brief but fair. Second round of reviewing went faster.
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9.0 wks n/a n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Disputatio 13.0 wks n/a n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Journal of Social Philosophy 27.9 wks n/a n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: The review reports were very useful. My only reason for not giving an overall 'Excellent' rating for this journal is that the review process could be a little bit shorter.
Fisheries Oceanography 8.3 wks 17.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Thorough reviews from qualified, competent reviewers.
Reasonable response time on original submission.
However, despite highly favorable reviews from both reviewers, editor sent revision out for re-review. Should have been easy (fast) revaluation & response by editor without need to re-review. This process took 2 months longer than necessary and placed excess burden on reviewers.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)