Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
15.2 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Despite my paper being rejected by the editor, the reviews were extensive, on-topic and helpful. Good review process.
19.1 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was smooth and relatively quick. My only frustration was that the editor made a lot of unnecessary minor edits after acceptance. Some of these altered the meaning of sentences and resulted in inaccuracies that I had to address.
11.6 weeks
33.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Accepted
Motivation: In the first round the editor(s) failed to send me the full text of one of the reviewers' reports. It took a number of months before the editorial team realised this, which delayed the process substantially. The time from acceptance to publication was 8 months.
52.1 weeks
69.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Accepted
8.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: It took awhile (2 months) to hear back from reviewers, but otherwise great experience.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The turnaround time was relatively short and as "advertized". The reviews were polite and constructive in tone, and focused primarily on shortcomings. While the reviewers had a few suggestions for improvement, they could have been more developmental. Some of the criticisms appeared too demanding to me.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The editor explained their decision in detail. The feedback was constructive and focused on both strengths and weaknesses. The comments by the editor and the reviewers contained specific advice on how I could proceed with the manuscript, including references.
18.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The reason that the manuscript does not fit the journal made no sense to me, especially because it had been under review at two similar journals.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: The feedback was polite. The editor provided suggestions on where to send the manuscript. The single review consisted of two paragraphs.
21.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
3.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
1.7 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: very quick immediate rejection, so no time lost
n/a
n/a
44 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No reasons for desk reject except for "fit"; it took the editor more than 30 days to come to that decision
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
10.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 167.2 days
Drawn back
Motivation: After 5 1/2 months in submission the paper had not even been sent to reviewers. On contacting them the publishers said there was a considerable backlog following 'editorial restructuring' and that they couldn't predict a review time. Messages sent to the editorial team received no reply at all... As I wanted my research reported this year I withdrew the paper and resubmitted to another journal. Health Policy is a quality journal, but it's clearly having difficulties at the present time and I would think twice about submitting any time critical papers to them
6.0 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
39.1 weeks
73.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
34.7 weeks
36.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
30.4 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews and handling were fast and efficient, but referee reports of pretty poor quality.
6.0 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fast handling by the editors and reviewers. The reviewers were familiar wtih the topic.
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
76 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Journal follows somewhat unorthodox and quite extensive style guidelines, which have to be adhered to before a manuscript is considered.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
Motivation: Experience was very pleasing. Even though the initial requirements (all figures in *.eps format etc) were painful the speed of the review process and handling by the editor were excellent.
34.7 weeks
40.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very long and the reviewers were from a competing field, with little expertise in this specific field (as they acknowledged in the reviews). They came with a negative verdict in the second review round (based on vague arguments), which was uncritically taken over by the editor. After I complained about this, the editor told me that he would discuss the issue with somebody from the editorial team and that this could take another three weeks to a month. It then took 15 weeks and required two reminders from my side before I finally got an answer. He let me know that they would allow me to submit the paper again and start a completely new review process. However, after this experience (which meant a time loss of over a year), I did not want to run the risk of more delay and published in another journal.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected without in-depth review process, the journal did nor provide any scientific reasons for the rejection. The editors have felt that the scope of the manuscript would fit to a more applied and specilized journal.
6.5 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fair and had high scientific quality, I would recommend this journal to others. However I have to say that the online manuscript tracking system is a bit clumsy and doesn't provide much information.
10.0 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was prompt and correct and based on the comments the manuscripts was greatly improved.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript should have been sent out for external assessment. Obviously the editor believes the readership will not benefit from the contents. I have experienced this before and the article is now a "highly cited" (405 citations to date) in the area.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
3.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: My manuscript was handled very well by this journal. The review process was quite quick and the reviewer's comments were of a high standard, and fair. After addressing the comments the quality of my manuscript was greatly improved. I would recommend this journal without reservation.
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)