Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Translational Stroke Research
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: This is a nice journal with great reviewers.
Marine Policy
8.4 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
PLoS Genetics
4.9 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Cultural Sociology
21.7 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process for Cultural Sociology was great; really, it was an example of how the peer review process should function. The timelines were reasonable (9.5 months from first submission to acceptance after revisions, less than 1 year from submission to online publication), and the editor solicited excellent reviews. The reviewers' comments and suggestions really helped me improve the manuscript; they really engaged with my work, and their comments focused on helping me frame and draw out the most important conceptual issues. In fact, the editors comments seemed to suggest that I should make fairly minimal revisions, but I ended up doing more revision than was actually asked for, because a couple of suggestions in the reviews really inspired me. In the end, the paper was much better for having gone through the review process (and how often can we truly say that?).
European Journal of Cell Biology
7.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
2.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Cellular Biochemistry
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Mathematical and Computer Modelling
39.1 weeks
69.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Though, the review process made my paper an improved one, but the process took a lot of time.
Global Public Health
11.6 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Despite of a quite long waiting time for getting the first decision, the review process went quite well. The editor assigned a competent reviewers from which we get constructive and valuable feedback that focus on improving the scientific quality and the clarity of the article
Journal of Community Health
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process is quite fast and editor give a clear answer and reasoning.
RSC Advances
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent Journal and very good review process
Journal of Hydrology
104.2 weeks
117.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
1
Accepted
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
18.0 weeks
28.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Rheumatology
Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
PLoS ONE
7.3 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I felt tha the review process improved my paper, there was some external views on the data I'd not considered and the manuscript was improved when a couple of small errors was highlighted. The editorial team worked hard and therer was a quick turn around. The paper was accepted and is now available to be read and downloaded.
Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering
25.7 weeks
34.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Perceptual and Motor Skills
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Media, Culture and Society
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Climate of the Past
26.0 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Ecosystems
20.7 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The handling editor stated that the review process was long (~5 months) because one reviewer could not do the review and he had to find another reviewer. Additionally, one reviewer had generally constructive comments, but felt the need to insult the authors. These comments should have been censored by the editor.
Ecological Applications
8.3 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was relatively efficient and we received good and thorough reviews.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
13.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Bridge Engineering
13.0 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Neuropharmacology
6.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
13.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Structural Engineering and Mechanics
17.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Economics Bulletin
21.9 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Stem Cells
4.4 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Stem Cells
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Marine Policy
8.7 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
American Journal of Political Science
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review process, high quality reviews, and friendly correspondence with the editor!
African Development Review
39.7 weeks
70.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Engineering Structures
13.0 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Science
7.4 weeks
81.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Accepted
NDT & E International
8.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
NDT & E International
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted