Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
PLoS ONE
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Cellular Signalling
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Cellular Signalling
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Protist
5.9 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
PeerJ
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was immediately rejected because it was considered as out of scope of the journal. The positive things are the nicest submission system I've seen, and the impressively quick reaction by the editors (it took them just a few hours to reply). However, I wrote a rebuttal that the journal lists that topic in their scope, and I cited several similar papers that were published in journals of similar scope. I have never received a response, so my experience is mixed.
Oral Diseases
13.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Computational and Applied Mathematics
25.3 weeks
64.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: The second round review took long time. One of the reviewer was very gifty and gaved wrong remarks. I have wasted a lot of time and review rounds clarifying this reviewer about the wrong statements he has. This reviewer took long time to respond since the first reviewer was already satisfied.
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory
39.1 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: First review outcome took a long time. However the article was submitted to a special issue.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor declared that there were not enough reviewers in the scientific community to assess all the papers submitted. Therefore, the editors could arbitrarily chose to reject papers without asking for the opinion of specialist reviewers. In this case the editor was clearly wrong since the paper was accepted a few months later by another very respectable journal.
Finite Elements in Analysis and Design
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
56.3 weeks
61.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Probability Theory and Related Fields
3.0 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
11.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
38.9 weeks
51.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
BioMed Research International
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very good and timely processed. Reviewer comments were very helpful in improving the quality of the paper.
ISME Journal
12.6 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
American Journal of Neuroradiology
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Cerebellum
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Solar Physics
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: It would be nice to get more than one reviewer, because like this changes are subjective. And often motivated by reviewers own career goals.
Astrophysical Journal
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Only complaint is just one reviewer. More opinions would be welcomed. My reviewer was young, probably student. That was obvious from the comments. Having someone more experienced to review the paper would be beneficial.
Schizophrenia Research
17.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
West European Politics
25.9 weeks
25.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The first review round took a very long time!
Chemical Communications
2.1 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Nature
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of the International AIDS Society
12.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process was swift and professional. Reviewer comments were appropriate and helpful in improving the manuscript.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA
n/a
n/a
63 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor didn't assign reviewers for a very long time. After we inquired he asked us to send him some names, only to reject the paper without sending it for reviews, instead providing a "review" by a "member of the editorial team", who seemed to be clueless as to what the paper was actually about.
The entire process took 9 weeks -- far too long for such a rejection.
Journal of Management Inquiry
17.1 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: We understood exactly what the Journal of Management Inquiry wanted. They are a rigorous, though rather creative journal (the "New Yorker" magazine of the academic management world). Their comments helped the paper a lot.
Micron
4.9 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Tissue and Cell
3.0 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy
8.6 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were good
Dalton Transactions
0.0 weeks
0.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: review was helpful
Organometallics
0.3 weeks
0.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: estions were made
Dalton Transactions
0.4 weeks
0.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Improveoodments suggested wre g
Journal of Hazardous Materials
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: average quality of review
Chemical Communications
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: good review
Anticancer Research
2.3 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Molecular Oncology
4.6 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Biochemical Pharmacology
2.4 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted