Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
PharmacoEconomics
6.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Good and sensible reviewer comments and from the editor as well. Helped to improve the paper. Also the reviewing process was quite fast.
Energy and Buildings
73.8 weeks
73.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Accepted
Motivation: Review process took very long time.
Fuel Processing Technology
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Renewable Energy
30.4 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Energy Efficiency
52.1 weeks
82.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
17.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
6.9 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: This was faster than previous experiences with JEMS, and we were given a chance to revise the paper despite one rather critical reviewer. The work we put into the revision paid out, though.
Physics Letters A
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Theoretical papers are sent to referees who are experts in experiment and vice versa. Referee reports are not logical with respect to the content of the manuscript and mostly motivated by the own ideas of the referees.
Physics Letters A
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: Manuscripts are sent to non-expert reviewers.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were very short (97 words together), very general (e.g. #1: "It is very descriptive and low in interest for the audience"; #2: "There is little scientific aspect in the paper") and not supported with any clear reference to the text. If I would not have been a seasoned author, for example a PhD candidate, I would have been disincentivized.
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Editor suggested, in a relevant way, a different kind of journal.
Reports on Mathematical Physics
12.7 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Acta Physica Polonica, B
10.9 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Lithuanian Mathematical Journal
14.3 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Few-Body Systems
6.3 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Food Control
13.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers brought out the salient information and critique that made the paper stand out
Journal of Mathematical Physics
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Journal of European Social Policy
17.4 weeks
45.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was very good. The review process has improved my paper a lot. However, in may opinion, the review process could be a little bit faster.
Lancet Oncology
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: Sometime review comments are not improving quality of paper and some questions are really ridiculous
Science
Immediately accepted after 3.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems
Immediately accepted after 30.9 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The review process of this journal is quiet fast.
Facilities
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Journal of Property Investment and Finance
Immediately accepted after 1.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Journal of Antibiotics
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: N/A
Journal of Hydrology
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Very inefficient editorial handling. It took over 4 months for the Editor to realise that one of the reviewers had not provided the review and another 2 months for them to find another reviewer. Never replied to emails.
Chemical Geology
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent, timely editorial handling. Very constructive reviews from experts in the field.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
2.7 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Microbial Pathogenesis
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
European Security
6.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Drawn back
Motivation: The first round of revisions really improved the paper. This was enough to satisfy reviewer 1, but insufficient for reviewer 2. The critique of the latter was quite external. Unfortunately the reviewer sided with reviewer 2.
European Journal of Agronomy
3.9 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Obesity Reviews
3.0 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Highly professional and serious editor and reviewers. Good and useful evaluation by reviewers. I recommend publishing in the journal.
Social Indicators Research
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Electric Power Systems Research
15.2 weeks
16.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of the Royal Society Interface
4.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The whole review process was quick, relevant and objective
Political Analysis
31.9 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Child Development
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Current Issues in Tourism
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Current Issues in Tourism
8.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
PS: Political Science and Politics
31.9 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were good, but whole process took considerable time.
PS: Political Science and Politics
30.0 weeks
30.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Rejected