Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
16.3 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: I had three reviewers with completely different comments. Therefore, it took me a while to make the changes. But after re-submission, my paper was not send to the reviewers again and it was rejected instead. The editor gave me three reasons for it, i.e. three points that had been requested by the reviewers. But I did not agree at all, because I changed these three points. My impression was that my paper was read very superficially. I complained to the editor and asked whether my paper could be reread. But the editor answered that the decision was final. I found the review process very unfair because the superficial reading was the reason why my paper was not sent to the reviewers again. I would have preferred that the reviewers had judged themselves.
1.6 weeks
1.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
19.5 weeks
49.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Rejected
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: The journal sat on my paper for four months before it was rejected. Several times I attempted to contact the editor for an update without success. Finally, after over two months of silence, I received an email saying the following:

"I'm sorry. I'm a bit behind on decisions. I hope to get caught up soon. Thanks for letting me know.
Seth"

This email was unhelpful. The journal then sat on my paper for another two months before rejecting it for reasons I do not understand, given the reviewers seemed to enjoy it and their critical feedback was mild.
17.4 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor clearly wants a speedy process, and thanked the authors for resubmitting quickly.
8.7 weeks
8.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Process went smooth, reviews of high quality. Overall process from submission to acceptance took 7 months.
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: It was an excellent review process. I highly recommend this journal for researchers in the financial services marketing.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
2
Rejected
Motivation: It took one month just for the paper to be assigned to an editor. Then, three and a half months later, we receive the rejection notice with just two very scant reviews that evidenced very little effort from the reviewers, some of whose comments actually contradict factual data in the paper. Either we presented the paper very badly or they did not bother reading it thoroughly.
4.0 weeks
14.8 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was accepted after discussing with the editor regarding the final reviewer request and why we could not address this. This is an excellent journal with excellent editors who actively review the reviewers opinions and weigh them against that of authors and content of the manuscript before a final decision is made. A very sound (and fast) review process that is fair and rigorous and would recommend this as the endocrine journal of choice to researchers.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer did not make any attempt to review the scientific argument in the paper but simply went on to find fault with the terminology used and express his/her opinion about how it was not possible to understand the paper. The review was simply about authors being unclear about the underlying models, being confused about key statistical concepts followed by a tutorial on the reviewers thoughts about the terminology used in statistics. There was no attempt made to objectively assess the proposal in the paper or to demonstrate if it works or not. There was no consideration at all of our methods or any specific pointer to the validity of our findings - two pages filled with non-specific opinions that could very well address any paper at Statistics in Medicine. The editors simply served as gate keepers for the reviewers. I would avoid this journal if you are presenting new methods and are not a famous personality.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Review was fast and reviewer comments were reasonable. I would submit manuscripts to this journal again.
n/a
n/a
152 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After more than 5 months, we received the following e-mail:

"I am writing with reference to manuscript XXXXXX titled "Automatic ...." Please allow me to clarify that your manuscript was sent to a large number of editors and, up till now, we have not received any evaluation reports on it, which may indicate a lack of interest from the editors' side regarding the topic
of your manuscript. Thus, unfortunately, we will not be able to consider your manuscript in the journal."

So, after 22 weeks, they decided that the manuscript was not of interest for this journal. Serious journals make this kind of decisions in 1-2 weeks.
10.5 weeks
13.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: The Associate editor said "whilst there is some interest in how this work has been done, the three reviewers had varying views but on overall the feeling was 1. the work would not change the overall view of this area given recent FDA pronoucements and 2. that the statistical aspects were potential problematic in places. Overall, taking all things into consideration, the paper would not be currently competitive against other papers submitted to the journal."

We believe that when reviewers flag methodological concerns it is a concerning if editors make the inference that there are potentially problematic statistical issues without feedback from the authors - reviewers may not necessarily be as well versed in the methods as the authors and thus this situation reflects editors simply acting as gate keepers.
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
15.2 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
11.1 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
11.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Ecological Modelling was the fastest journal from submission to publication that I've ever experienced.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
2
Rejected
3.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Rejected
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.0 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reasonable speed for answer, good quality reviews that added value to the paper.
6.0 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer comments were thorough, to the point and useful. Communication was polite and clear.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 668.8 days
Drawn back
Motivation: After I submitted the paper I sent 6 e-mails (one every 4 months) to understand what is going on. The replies to my e-mails provided contradictory information: one said that a decision will be reached soon and three months later the e-mail said that they are still waiting for a reviewer,
5.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The whole process took a lot of effort and was very unclear. At first the manuscript appeared to be accepted, however after we chose not to pay for an English language check by a firm suggested by them and had it done by our own universities language center, the manuscript was rejected. The reason why the manuscript was rejected remained unclear. We attempted a complaint with someone listed as chief editor but never got a response.
13.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Accepted
Motivation: Fast turnaround, there were sompe problems with the online submission system.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews were constructive and polite, however somewhat general and motivated from the reviewers personal view on the topic.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were thorough, polite, and useful.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: PLOS Medicine has a special "presubmission inquiry" process. You can send in your abstract to this process and within 3 days you will receive an advise on whether to send in your whole manuscript for a longer review process or whether to send it to a different journal.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Communication was swift and polite.
13.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very swift turnaround, professional behavior of the editor, and useful cmments provided by the reviewers.
39.1 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
Motivation: After waiting for approximately 7 months I have received a short letter (four to five lines) in which the editor explained that they do not accept my manuscript for publication and they provide no comments to rejected manuscripts.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very rapid turnaround. The article was a controversial one, and I expected at least one hostile reviewer to respond to, but the editors were very fair in sending it to reviewers who would be objective.