Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was rather rigorous, but at the same time, fair, constructive, and rapid.
Psychopharmacology
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Drawn back
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I felt that waiting 3 months before being informed that the journal could not find reviewers for my paper was slower than necessary.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
9.1 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
3
Accepted
Motivation: The editor of our manuscript was responsive and easy to communicate with. However, our paper only received 1 review, which was fairly minimal.
Water Resources Research
7.6 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was timely, the reviewer and editor comments were helpful, and the online submission system was fairly intuitive. I have no complaints.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Land Use Policy
44.6 weeks
52.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Technovation
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
9.1 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
7.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Environmental Modelling and Software
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Environmental Modelling and Software
n/a
n/a
54 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The first internal review was a bit long (almost 2 months) given the output (rejection without external review). However, elements were provided in order to improve the paper quality.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
20.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Besides the 2 external reviewers, the editor in chief and the associate editor also provide a comprehensive review of the paper on both aspects, content and form. The first review round was a bit long but very comprehensive. The handling of the revised manuscript was quite efficient.
Personality and Individual Differences
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
0.4 weeks
0.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The anonymous peer reviewers selected by this journal are professionals who are familiar with my research topics.
European Sociological Review
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Very fast review procedure
American Sociological Review
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review procedure, which is much appreciated
Applied Mathematics Letters
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Foresight
4.7 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Accepted
Menopause
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: We acquired constructive comments from three reviewers and the process was fast.
European Journal of Population
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
3.9 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Information and Management
17.3 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Computational Neuroscience
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: -the revision duration was correct
-the reviewers arguments to reject the paper were acceptable
Journal of Phycology
20.1 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Drawn back
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
Chemistry and Ecology
4.1 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Phycologia
7.7 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Phycology
5.0 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Maturitas
0.7 weeks
0.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process was very effective. However, we would have appreciated a little longer time to make the suggested corrections (we had 4 weeks).
PLoS ONE
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The review took five month
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
The Gerontologist
6.6 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Long review time due to changes in the editorial board. Needed to contact the editor after which the decision was received in two weeks. Communication with the editor was 5/5.
Biostatistics
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: Some reviews in favor and some against it. The quality of review comment were not upto the mark as expected. It seemed that some reviewer have not even read the manuscript and just have given their review by primary quick view.
Applied Physics Letters
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick decision. Though the editor said that the manuscript does not meet the timeliness requirement for rapid publication in this Letters Journal.
Applied Surface Science
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer comments were indicting that the reviewer have not gone through the manuscript well enough and have given his/her advise for shake of formality.