Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
21.9 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
4.4 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
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!
39.7 weeks
70.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
13.0 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
7.4 weeks
81.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Accepted
8.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
4
Accepted
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Rejected
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
8 reports
5
5
Accepted
7.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very helpful and constructive advice in sharpening the draft.
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good reviewers comments.
Fast procedure
21.7 weeks
24.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is fast and in depth.
5.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I have submitted a different article to the same journal and was rejected. The reviewers comments were, in my opinion, unfair. I have emailed the editor asking him to give me the opportunity to defend my article. He did not even reply my email. I would like to suggest that authors of the rejected articles being given an opportunity, if they like, to defend them.
4.0 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The comments were valid, focused on scientific quality and the changes made the paper better in the end. For me who publish in a trans-disciplinary field it was important to have extarnals read it to make sure the language and approach was understandable for experts from different fields.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
5.9 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The duration of the whole process could have been shorter but as such went very well and reasonably fast.
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.7 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was rejected because it was deemed to species specific.
6.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
13.3 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.9 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
8.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: There was a delay in publication process after final acceptance
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fantastic efficiency and good peer review comments
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
5.9 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted