Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics
10.6 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Pretty smooth, some good reviews, and an editor who clearly read the manuscript and also helped with useful comments.
Glia
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: I rated "3" as apparently the reviews could have taken much longer. They were detailed to the point, for one of them, of being nit-picky. Hopefully they will help us in revising and submitting to a different journal. Given the tenor of the comments, I found a rejection unnecessarily harsh from the editor, but we needn't beg to get it published here.
BMC Public Health
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Ecology Letters
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Frontiers in Public Health
15.7 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
PLoS ONE
19.7 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Managerial Auditing Journal
20.4 weeks
41.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor in chief did a great job by recruiting great reviewers that really want to improve the paper and that know the files, the topic and method. Great experiment to improve my knowledge.
ChemSusChem
3.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
6.1 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Science of the Total Environment
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer comments are great and they can be modifiable, but the editorial decision was reject.
Dental and Medical Problems
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Dental and Medical Problems
6.0 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
BMC Oral Health
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Dental and Medical Problems
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was great but the time between acceptance and publication was too long, about two years.
BDJ Open
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Saudi Dental Journal
14.0 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Frontiers in Psychology
6.9 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and concrete comments from expert reviewers.
BMC Psychology
21.3 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: The review took almost 5 months, but the suggestions and comments were perfect and detailed and helped me greatly improve my manuscript. I give it a score of 4 not 5 just because it took a long time.
Child: Care, Health and Development
8.6 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: It was my second experience with this journal, both papers received excellent comments from reviewers and the process was very smooth. The first manuscript received a decision in 3 months, and my second manuscript was accepted in 4 months.
Physiotherapy
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 35.0 days
Drawn back
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Dendrochronologia
6.6 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Some non-overlapping reviewers, and of varying quality of reports, but the editor and staff were all professional and supportive through the process.
Experimental and Applied Acarology
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
7.9 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies
12.7 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer and editor-in-chief are friendly even though the waiting time is a bit long, but I think it's effective
Nature Ecology and Evolution
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
3
Rejected
Motivation: We submitted an interdisciplinary manuscript to this journal. The editors sent our manuscript to four reviewers to cover all areas presented in the manuscript. Three reviewers raised minor issues and one reviewer suggested rejection. The latter reviewer stated that the reviewer has lots of experience in the field and they do not want the field to move in the direction we proposed. They did not provide any critics about the results, methods, or conclusions we made. The editor followed the advise of the reviewer suggesting rejection, and the editor recommended us to radically rethink our work. This journal publishes very good quality manuscripts but after this submission, it became clear that this is not a place for publishing work that propose new concepts.
Physical Review Letters
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science Bulletin
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Forum of Mathematics, Sigma
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Communications in Mathematical Physics
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
New Journal of Physics
8.4 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Humor
17.9 weeks
35.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Physical Review Letters
6.1 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Journal of Climate
7.0 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough peer review by people with obvious knowledge of the subject, yet the reviews were timely. The editor was professional and no additional correspondence required. Communications with production/technical/billing were all smooth.
Systèmes d'Information et Management
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Very rapid review process with two well-reasoned reviews. Although disappointed with the result, I cannot fault the process.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
American Journal of Political Science
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Access
3.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very smooth. I liked the reviewers' reports as they helped to improve the manuscript.