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
Central European Geology 13.0 wks 13.0 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: Central European Geology is fair in publishing anything of scientific value based on local geology, if it is worth the attention of other geologists.
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17.3 wks 18.3 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The reviews highlighted some blind spots in my argumentation, and also showed that some of the examples were distracting from the main point and could be cut.
International Journal of Public Health 25.0 wks 68.6 wks n/a 1 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Accepted
Motivation: Can't recommend this journal at all. Would never submit again.
Scientific Reports 7.1 wks 11.7 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 1 (bad) Accepted
Motivation: The paper was "transferred" from Nature Communications - but this is bogus because it was not transferred at all. Scientific Reports is not tied in to other NPG accounts and required a new upload of all documents plus adding in all the information regarding funding and co-authors (this should have been transferred directly from Nat Comm). The paper was then delayed in being accepted for review due to some minor copy editing issues, and then further delayed because one author was deceased and had no valid email address. The first round of reviews were slow and only asked for minor changes in content. In the second round of reviews, the paper was not accepted because revision was needed to change the title and one figure legend sentence. In any other journal, this would be an "accept" with very minor modifications decision. The final version was followed by an unnecessary "unsubmitting" action at Scientific Reports with no instructions given as to what the issue was. Paper was resubmitted as it was and accepted. The whole process with this journal was exceptionally tedious and aggravating. Our entire team was quite distressed at the length of time needed for the reviews and the silliness in unsubmitting the paper continually. Staff at Sci Rep were apologetic but there seems to be no effort on the part of Scientific Reports to bring the journal up to other NPG journal standards.
Planta 4.6 wks 7.6 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Sustainability 5.4 wks 5.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: We sent in a paper and we got it back after one round of revision with fairly minor comments. We addressed the comments and resubmitted thinking it was going to be accepted fast.

To our surprise, the second round of review took a lot longer than the first, and the outcome was a rejection motivated by a long review by the editor in which he had a lot of critiques, completely different from those expressed by the two reviewers. Most of what the editor commented on 1) showed he did not understand the paper and/or 2) was relatively trivial staff that could easily have addressed in the revision, had he given his comments to the original submission.

Very weird experience overall. Handling time was decent, at least.
BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care 12.9 wks 39.1 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Appetite 4.0 wks 4.0 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 1 (bad) Rejected
Motivation: The editor agreed "with both reviewers that [what we pointed out] only hold for this paper but for many more" but stated that "It seems unfair to specifically target this issue for this paper". When we proposed to write a more general letter to the Editor addressing this common error, the Editor dismissed it as falling "beyond the scope of Appetite". I believe this shows lack of interest for the integrity of the Scientific Method.
Journal of Religion in Africa 69.4 wks 168.0 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 0 (very bad) Rejected
ACS Nano 2.4 wks 2.4 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Motivation: The review process was rapid, and the ACS journals do a good job in this regard. However, the Editor has way more power than is ideal. In our case, one of the Reviewers suggested to publish as is and the other, to publish in a different journal. The Editor gave us an option to resubmit within 180 days after answering the second Reviewer's queries, but somehow decided to reject for now.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.1 wks 4.1 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected
Ceramics International 2.0 wks 2.1 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: The handeling of paper was very fast they took only 14 days for the first round
And after resubmission i got the acceptance after 4 hours.
It is a great journal
Journal of Molluscan Studies n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The journal indicates that it is interested in Molluscan physiological papers, but the reasons given for manuscript rejection suggest that the focus is behavioral and ecology. This manuscript was rejected due to the lack of “relevance to field conditions” and “behavior in the field.” Although, I enjoy reading this journal, I would caution physiologist about submitting their manuscripts. On the other hand, behavioral scientist and ecologist would likely benefit from the very fast response times.
Biological Invasions n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Shellfish Research 6.5 wks 6.5 wks n/a 4 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The editor was actively involved in the review process. The review comments were helpful for the most part. The editor also carefully considered both the author and reviewers responses. The entire process was relatively quick and straightforward.
American Journal of Public Health n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Preventive Medicine n/a n/a 9.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Mycological Progress 17.0 wks 26.4 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Nature Genetics n/a n/a 0.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 5.7 wks 8.1 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Overall the process was smooth, however the single review was a disappointment.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment n/a n/a 41.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Waiting 41 days to hear that the manuscript did not even pass the first evaluation is shocking. I can accept that the editor feels the manuscript was out of the scope, but if that's the case, surely this can be detected in less than 41 days. This is an unacceptable waste of time for the authors and for the scientific community.
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 6.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
African Affairs n/a n/a 9.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Desk rejects are always disappointing, but they provided a paragraph to state the reasons and suggested which kind of journals they think are more suited.
BMC Veterinary Research 26.0 wks 49.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Fungal Diversity n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acoustical Science and Technology 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: It was "accept as is".
Nucleic Acids Research 4.0 wks 10.3 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
Journal of Bacteriology 4.1 wks 5.6 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Scientific Reports 7.3 wks 7.3 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 1 (bad) Rejected
BBA General Subjects n/a n/a 29.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Plant and Soil 11.9 wks 11.9 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 2 (moderate) Rejected
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 20.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE 7.4 wks 7.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 1 (bad) Rejected
Microbial Ecology 8.4 wks 9.1 wks n/a 3 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Phytochemistry 5.4 wks 13.9 wks n/a 1 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate) Accepted
Mycological Progress 4.6 wks 10.0 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
ISME Journal n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Environmental Microbiology 6.1 wks 9.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Acoustical Science and Technology 5.9 wks 5.9 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: They returned the decision letter very quickly. The decision letter made it very clear which points need to be fixed, and which points can be ignored.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 10.4 wks 10.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected
Motivation: The submission was for Express Letters category. I am disappointed that the decision was reject, but the reviews were fair. I revised the paper for a different journal which is more descriptively oriented, and it was eventually accepted.
https://scirev.sc/reviews/?start=80
scirev.sc
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-26
36381
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZAYUM6J6S5ZXV2QO7BDVUQY5HD2HNWPO
<urn:uuid:937dc3ff-922b-4577-9b45-12374d5cd07c>
2017-06-27T22:27:06Z
149.210.129.223
text/html
sha1:RTDCXOKDT7KQOUSSLCG5QUGMO4YDJQJW
<urn:uuid:b8fed3d3-522c-4b05-ae6d-8788def9d84f>
https://scirev.sc/reviews/?start=80
length
response
<urn:uuid:c12aa015-66d0-4f7a-94ae-145b273abda4>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-166-65-68.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-26
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf