Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Review of Income and Wealth
56.4 weeks
56.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Machine Vision and Applications
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
2
Rejected
Pervasive and Mobile Computing
20.3 weeks
40.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security
6.0 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review with accurate and useful comments.
Applied Geochemistry
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: Revisions are not constructive
Environmental Earth Sciences
15.2 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good revisions; 180 days from 1st submission to final decision
Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health
n/a
n/a
43 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
African Development Review
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Molecular BioSystems
4.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Accepted
Motivation: One of the 2 selected reviewers never gave its final decision on the revised version of the manuscript. The editor had to contact a member of the editorial board as a novel reviewer for the revised version. Hopefully the member of the editorial board was a real expert....but I got a response of the editor only after having suggested to withdraw my manuscript and send the you tube link to the Bob Marley Song 'I don't want to wait in vain for your love'.
Journal of Affective Disorders
6.0 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
Value in Health
13.3 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The first round review was a little slow given there were only 2 reviews but subsequent rounds got faster and the comments were balanced overall.
Nature Climate Change
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: Review period was reasonable in length however it is questionnable whether the reviewers were the most appropriate - this seems to be a particular concern for social science papers.
Studies in Higher Education
28.9 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: Too long review process; brief anonymous reviews only sent after repeated requests by author (since no clear information on review process duration was given after initial notice of paper being sent out for review).
Minerva
13.4 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Sociology of Education
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Although the reviews (4) were very challenging, they helped make for what we hope will be a lasting contribution to the literature. Top-ranked journal for a reason!
Journal of Global Optimization
5.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Quick and detailed reviews. Reviewers are trying to help and not to judge.
Canadian Journal of Political Science
13.0 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: I have received very useful reviews which improved the paper, in particular in the first round. However, I think that the review process was unnecessarily long.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
1.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Comments from reviewers and the editor were formulated in order to improve the quality of our submitted work.
Applied Soft Computing
n/a
n/a
617 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 20 MONTHS the editor just sent the following strange and unprofessional report:

1. The paper does not have significant contribution to soft computing.
2. Lacks novelty.
3. No comparative study.
4. Lacks details for repeatability of the experiments.
Social Science and Medicine
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I feel the paper hasn't been judged but probably the editor did not like the topic or approach
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Finance and Economics
n/a
n/a
82 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor informed me that an expert recommended him to reject the paper. This was after 3 months the paper should be reviewed. I sent several letters to demand a copy of the Reviewer's comments - if such a reviewer existed. My emails were ignored.
European Sociological Review
39.6 weeks
39.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Too lengthy review period
British Journal of Sociology
n/a
n/a
71 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Forces
16.1 weeks
33.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv
Immediately accepted after 5.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Journal of Vocational Behavior
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Gender and Education
19.7 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Supportive Care in Cancer
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Reference and User Services Quarterly
8.3 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor Barry Trott was very professional and communicated with me regularly with updates on the process. He responded to all my e-mails in a day or two. This was in fact and best communication with an editor that I have ever had.
Nature Biotechnology
11.7 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
International Journal of the Commons
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
PLoS ONE
8.0 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: PLOS One took a long time to find an academic editor.
Social Psychology Quarterly
10.4 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: I think the editor of this journal did an outstanding job (despite of the fact that she rejected our submission). We received a editorial letter that summarized the different reviews very well and suggested a clear direction for the revision. After the reject in the second round we received an elaborate explanation.
Economic and Industrial Democracy
8.3 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Addictive Behaviors
13.9 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was a bit slow and the only reviewer report we received did not contribute much to the improvement of the paper; rather we just lost 5 months with it.
Organization
n/a
n/a
68 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The submission occurred at the end of July and was in the 'awaiting Associate Editor assignment' stage for a long time. After 2.5 months I emailed them and got a response about a week later with a rejection from the editor. The response was not very long and detailed. However it was written very constructively and they encouraged me to submit a new version of the paper after major revisions.
IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The quality of the reviews do not match the quality of the journal.
Robotics and Autonomous Systems
7.4 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews quality was OK but processing and publication times were really fast.