Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Public Opinion Quarterly
14.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Rejected
Motivation: There were two acceptance (revise&resumbmit) and one rejection, so the editor could give us chance (also considering that the paper was highly published at the end). Nevertheless, the reviews were of a good quality
Scientia Pharmaceutica
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The over all rating of this journal is good in quality, but publication process needs to be improved
Organic Letters
2.0 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
European Journal of Oncology Nursing
25.6 weeks
55.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process was a long process, with no information about the status of the manuscript in between.
The comments of the reviewers were of good quality and allowed us to improve the manuscript, which was very positive.
Patient Education and Counseling
6.0 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Overall a pleasant review process; good contact with the editor; swift responses to inquiries. Reviews were relevant and led to substantial improvement of the manuscript.
Information Systems Journal
26.0 weeks
58.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Knowledge Management Research and Practice
26.0 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nano Energy
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Accepted
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
3.3 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The journal is very speedy in giving feedback and the reviews are of high standing.
Linguistics and Philosophy
17.4 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Expert Review of Vaccines
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I was able to suggest the reviewers, and this has been honoured by the editor. I have not contacted the reviewers, they were suggested based on their expertise and international standing. The reviews had been very detailed, constructive and added a great deal of quality to the final version of the paper.
RSC Advances
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Water Resources Research
10.1 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Good, constructive review process. Knowledgeable reviewers who obviously took the time to read and understand the paper and provide useful comments which definitely improved the quality of the final accepted paper.
Climate Research
6.6 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good process. Efficient and clear.
Biological Conservation
7.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Science
8.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Soil and Tillage Research
13.0 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: AS the paper was sent to a different group of referees some contradictions between the suggestions made by the first and second group occurred
European History Quarterly
31.6 weeks
31.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
International Journal of Plasticity
6.7 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Allergy
13.1 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
4
Accepted
British Medical Journal
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: the review process could be finished in a much shorter period, especially after the first review round. Also the time required from submission to first decision was a bit long.
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
1.4 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Trends in Genetics
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: In my opinion, the quality of the review process is dictated by the availability of the editors for communication. In this regard, Trends in Genetics was great. I was kept informed of the process of the manuscript as it went through the process. I had one clarifying question about a comment from a reviewer that was handled quickly. Great process
Chemical Vapor Deposition
3.6 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Materials Science
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
European Polymer Journal
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Polymer
0.7 weeks
0.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Rejected
Environmental Reviews
9.0 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: I felt the journal editor handled the review process as well as could be expected given that only one of the reviewers bothered to thoroughly read the article. It was a review article and one of the reviewers rejected it because it "only repeated what others had written" which was in their opinion not enough to warrant a "scientific publication". The other reviewer had excellent and insightful comments which were very helpful in producing a much higher quality manuscript. The editor (fortunately, instead of rejecting the article) indicated that a suitable balance could be found between the two highly mixed reviews.
Current Sociology
7.0 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast, relevant, inspiring and valuable comments.
Coordination Chemistry Reviews
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Current Medicinal Chemistry
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
PNAS
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
Motivation: It went smoothly. Fast and efficient.
Journal of Heredity
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Quaternary Research
17.4 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
3.9 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Overall the review process was smooth, the reviewer comments and suggestions were relevant, and most importantly, the review process was done within 3 weeks. The time taken from 1st submission to the final acceptance was less than 4 months.
Animal
15.4 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted