Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
ACS Nano
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
5 reports
3
3
Rejected
Chemical Research in Toxicology
7.4 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The referees' comments were useful to improve the overall flow/readability of the manuscript. However, for the second revision, one referee asked to have an experiment done with human serum, instead of bovine serum -- which was used for the majority of our experiments. While the new data supported our initial findings, it was placed in the supplementary information file.
China Economic Review
22.1 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Accepted
Forestry
24.4 weeks
26.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Long duration of initial round of review was due to circumstances outside the journal's control. Editors and journal staff were communicative through all aspects. One of the better experiences I've had with receiving critical comments that were helpful without being demeaning.
Ecology and Evolution
6.7 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Virology
4.1 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Over-all process had a good turnaround (reviews, editorial decisions, proofs, final publication). Manuscript status bar was transparent which was very helpful to know at what stage your manuscript is at. Reviews were very fair and helpful.
Human Movement Science
11.1 weeks
28.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Biomechanics
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
12.3 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The editors are very responsive if there are any questions during the process.
The reviewing process, also the publication process are too long.
Marine Ecology Progress Series
11.1 weeks
25.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
International Immunopharmacology
8.7 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Algal Research
11.6 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Smooth process. Good reviews, helpful for improvement of the manuscript
Journal of Experimental Medicine
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Socio-Economic Review
9.1 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Pretty normal review, not superfast, but the editor found useful reviewers that helped sharpen the focus of the paper. We were surprised that the revised manuscript was sent out again, though, as there were no "difficult" revisions.
IEEE Access
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Politics
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers' feedback was detailed and helpful. Although I disagreed with key parts of the feedback (inevitable!), overall I agree the decision to reject was well-considered. Editor's comments were considered and kind. Turn around time was faster than expected, as I had not released that it had been sent to reviewers.
Preventive Medicine
7.0 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was good though took a bit of time, fair assessment after initial review and was given the opportunity to incorporate changes while some may have chosen to reject. Saw the value in the paper and provided opportunity to improve.
Mind
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Cognition
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cognitive Science
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Child Development
13.4 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
British Journal of Developmental Psychology
14.3 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Communications - Scientific Letters of the University of Žilina
13.3 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
International Journal of Cultural Studies
4.1 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and insightful review process. When I did not agree with all comments of the reviewers, the editor respected this. The communication went very smoothly.
Frontiers in Psychology
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0.0 days
Drawn back
Frontiers in Psychology
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0.0 days
Drawn back
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Geospatial Health
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Ecosphere
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Zoological Science
5.1 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Freshwater Biology
8.0 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Geometric Analysis
19.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Editor quickly handled the manuscript assigning reviewers within 10 days from submission.
We received two reports within 4 months. One was particularly detailed and gave us the opportunity to improve the manuscript by clarifying some points which we didn't explain in a crystal-clear way.
Chaos
5.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Entropy
2.7 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Entropy
7.0 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
European Physical Journal: Special Topics
19.7 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
European Physical Journal: Special Topics
7.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Applied Poultry Research
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Only from one reviewer we received comments. Not sure a second one was found. Comments were however usefull
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
2.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were professional with relevant backgrounds and the whole process was tightly managed by the editor