Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A paper that was clearly fit for the journal was rejected without review and with a generic email stating that it might be because of 3 reasons, none of which apply to the paper.
n/a
n/a
37 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.9 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: One of the two reviewers seemed not to have correctly understood the paper, maybe dedicated too little time, and the critiques in the report were therefore not very useful.
10.8 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was handled rather quick. Only the final decision (after minor revisions) took a while. The comments given were usefull and relevant. The journal stresses the importance of correct use of English language and formatting (they even requested to consult external editing service), although the document with guidelines is not very complete and written in a clear way.
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Dr. Huising and Dr. Klemes do great job in taking the manuscript, handling and finding reviewers and maintaining a fast communication in all aspects. JCP was the most efficient journal that I have worked with so far. I can assure you that you will receive iniitial feedback in less than 2-2.5 months
78.1 weeks
156.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: It took very very long (16~18 months) for the first review for two of my papers in this journal (both accepted with little delay after first review). However, another paper took only 5 months from first submission to publication. So it was a mixed bag.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review and reviewers were really into the topic with very helpful comments.
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Review process was fast. Reviewers did not understand the paper very well, it might be because it was a bit offtopic. Also, both reviewers contradicted each other.
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewing process was fast (it was an special issue). The reviews were of an average quality but not disapointing. Useful for the paper improvement.
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewing process is fast but the reviews look like the reviewers were not really into the topic of the paper. Most of the comments of the reviewers were meaningless.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Slow review process. Also, although the reviews were OK, they did not understand the contributions of the paper. It is hard to introduce a new point of view in an already saturated area.
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: The review process is fast but this journal looks for non very-technical contributions adn they complained that my paper was not technical enough.
15.7 weeks
24.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Long time for first review. Single reviewer demanded essential parts to be taken out and wrong statements to be taken in (besides other valuable points). Demands were formulated clearly and unambiguous.
7.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Quick handling and fair reviews with constructive critique that lead to important improvements in the manuscript.
65.1 weeks
80.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I had a great experience with the journal. The peer reviewers were helpful and fair, and the editorial team was great to work with.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: NEJM is obviously a great and reputable journal, so there isn't much to say about quality. Equally impressive is their very quick screening of manuscripts to determine if they are a potential fit for the journal. My submission was rejected for fit issues within 3 days, which I greatly appreciated as it saved me an enormous amount of time.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Although my paper was rejected and I was obviously disappointed, I felt as though I received a very fair peer review and compliment the quality of the editorial team and processes. I highly recommend this journal.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional editorial team and very easy to work with. The peer reviewers were quite helpful. This journal does a great job.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Great journal and editorial team. They were very easy to work with and very helpful for authors providing submissions.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Response - a rejection - was received in exactly 3 months later.
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: This journal is excellent when it comes to timely, careful reviews. I have found the associate editors to be very helpful and easy to deal with. I recommend this journal!
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
1
Drawn back
Motivation: AEHE generally publishes some very good papers, which motivated me to consider publishing there. I was quite dismayed with the quality of the peer reviewers, though. One of the reviewers claimed to be subject matter experts in the area, but his/her comments indicated otherwise. When I presented my evidence to the editor that one of the reviewers was seemingly unqualified, the editor forwarded my comments to the anonymous reviewer who ultimately admitted that s/he didn't know anything about the subject or methodology. The editor offered to send the paper to another reviewer, but many months of valuable time had already been wasted so I opted to pull the manuscript and submit it to a journal that had a Call for Papers and promised a very quick decision.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: I had a good experience with Academic Medicine. I felt I was given a fair peer review and have no qualms with any of that. However, our article was ultimately rejected because the topic had previously been published in Academic Medicine. This despite having excellent reviews from the reviewers. With good editorial screening, this verdict could have been reached within days and not wasted valuable reviewer time, or that of the authors.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Drawn back
Motivation: Medical Education is a highly regarded journal based in the UK. While the journal surely receives a high volume of submissions, reviews are incredibly questionable. I have submitted six articles to this journal in the past and each time I felt as though my work was reviewed by persons with minimal knowledge of the subject area. Three of the six papers I submitted were accepted for publication, but the incredibly poor quality peer-reviews and apparent editorial "napping" made the process so miserable that I simply withdrew two of the three accepted papers and never followed up. I have never had this type of strange, and negative, experience with any other journal.
21.7 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The data used in the study was public domain data from the internet. However, the journal has a rigid policy of requiring all papers to be considered by an ethics committee. This was clearly unnecessary in this case, and something I have never before encountered.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.0 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews we received were very good. I was slightly disappointed that the article was sent out a second time as it did not require any major revisions (such as additional data collection). I felt the editor could have made an assessment from our revision based on the first set of reviews. The second review process added 67 days, making the total time under review about 6 months.
9.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: The handling editor did not do a good job. After the first review round we were informed that basically only layout/formatting/style had to be changed. However, after the second round the manuscript was rejected because the editor had now realized that the study had, according to her/him, major flaws.
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Drawn back
Motivation: Swift and professional handling, but reviewer's reports were quite confusing and the editor's decision to request a major revision of the paper was not considered an option. Outcome: submission to another journal.
4.3 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was thorough and critical but constructive. It very much helped us to improve the manuscript. The handling editor was very clear about how to make the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal and fast in making decisions. Overall, a very positive experience.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
47.7 weeks
141.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
3
Accepted
8.7 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process is always well-scheduled. Often responces come before the scheduled time.The reviewers are competent and helpful. The improvement of my papers after revision is tremendous.
52.1 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Drawn back
Motivation: There is no any editorial disciplne. The paper was kept 1 year. Very poor managerial skills of the editors and indifference to the work of other people.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor provided an extremely quick response and seemed to have the best interests of the authors as a priority.
n/a
n/a
85 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Took nearly three months for the Editor to reject a manuscript without sending out to review.
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: High reputation of the Regional Editor, the reviewing and revising processes follow clear schedule, the reviewers are attentive, professional, helpful and polite.