Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
International Journal of Art and Design Education
5.1 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Rejected
Marriage and Family Review
22.1 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers are nice to junior researcher. Provided thoughtful comments.
Journal of Experimental Political Science
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Political Science Research and Methods
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Veterinary Microbiology
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science of the Total Environment
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
1
Rejected
Bioinformatics Advances
6.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Parliamentary Affairs
7.3 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Smooth throughout.
Communications Biology
7.9 weeks
12.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Although my submission was rejected, based on my limited experience with journal submissions, the processing speed of this journal is relatively fast. Three days after submission, the editor responded with reminders about some formatting issues. The time taken from resubmission after revisions to receiving the reviewers' comments and the editor's decision was also within my expectations.
Scientific Data
5.4 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Functional Ecology
11.4 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Legislative Studies Quarterly
9.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Total handling time was rather quick and the process professional. The reviewers pointed out several shortcoming and necessary improvements that led to the rejection, but helped improve the paper afterwards. Editor also seems to have engaged with the paper, so the overall decision is justified and understandable.
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology
10.0 weeks
29.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very fast, but the reviews were also very detailed and constructive. They significantly improved our paper.
Politische Vierteljahresschrift
9.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick handling time. Both reviewers critically engaged with the paper and provided important feedback while also being supportive. Editor did a great job explaining which changes are most important.
Pharos Journal of Theology
Immediately accepted after 35.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Nature
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation:
That’s great to hear! Collaborating with the editor can significantly enhance the quality of your work. Do you have more details about the experience? How did the editor support you?

Communications in Mathematical Physics
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Nonlinear Science
16.9 weeks
26.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The paper was sent to two reviewers. Both of the were extremely careful on their revision. They made very helpful reports that improved the paper quite a lot. The overall process was fantastic and the editor was very quick in taking the required actions.
Journal of Differential Equations
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer made an in-depth report on my work, commenting on fundamental aspects of the paper. The whole process took nearly two months and the reviewer seems to be someone who has a deep knowledge on the subject. I had a very positive experience.
Circulation
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Hypertension
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: Within a month, we received the reviewers' reports, so I think the process was quite smooth. We were disappointed to see the paper rejected after reviews, and did not find all reviewers' comments reasonable (for instance: recommendations to cite our previous but unrelated work). However, I understand the editor's decision based on these reports.
Atherosclerosis
6.6 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I found the review reports of good quality, they helped to improve the paper. The process was a bit slow, that would be my only feedback. When asking for status updates, the editorial office was responsive, which was nice.
Circulation
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Trials
11.3 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Bioinformatics
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Computational Science
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Ecology and Evolution
Immediately accepted after 1.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Forest Ecology and Management
4.3 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
BMC Health Services Research
19.7 weeks
37.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
The Lancet Global Health
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Acta Geotechnica
10.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Science
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Materials Chemistry, A
6.1 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was very smooth when compared to other journals. Always had good response with RSC journals
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
21.6 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review time was not short, but reviews were minor and helpful
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Gender Studies
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected