Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Very speedy and professional review process.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Review process was relatively speedy and professional.
8.7 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Speedy and transparent review process, with suitably matched reviewers.
0.9 weeks
0.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
4
Accepted
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The interactive review process facilitates an efficient discussion.
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: I received two reviews. The first was opinionated without supporting facts. The second was a reasonable review with objective critiques. Ultimately, no reason for the rejection was given except for the standard "not high enough priority." However, based on the available reviewer comments this could not be put in perspective.
1.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Painless submission process with reasonable and objective reviews.
6.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The article submission process was very streamlined and was one of the simplest I have encountered to date. The review and final notification of acceptance were also shorter than I expected. The editorial team bent over backwards to assist with any issues I had with the electronic system.
13.0 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were clearly experts, and gave a rapid but thorough review.
39.1 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
0
Rejected
Motivation: The decision to reject on the basis of being out of scope for the journal needs to be made immediately, not after sixteen months in process.
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers found a subtle but serious flaw in the mathematics. The flaw was fixable, so I regret the reject/no resubmission decision, but it was handled fairly.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: Great review process despite rejection. Comments very helpful in the end.
11.1 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
21.7 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: I spent 5 months waiting for a revise and resubmit from 2 reviewers and 1 OK. I then addressed the reviewers comments in good faith for 6 months. I then waited 6 months for 2 reviewers to reject and 1 to say Ok (again). I am fine with reviewers opinions - even from those who are initially encouraging and then sharply critical, even if the latter is disagreeable. However it should be the editor's job to explain and moderate in this situation - not to simply copy paste a reviewer's comment by way of explanation. Overall: a huge waste of time. Thank goodness there are just as good journals out there, who may know how to run things properly.
7.6 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: In robotics, as any other multidisciplinary science, the review process is far from being straightforward. In most situations, either on journals or relevant conferences in the field, such as IROS or ICRA, reviews may not fill our expectations. Either because they may fail to grasp the mathematical complexity associated with the proposed methodologies, or because they completely ignore the hard and time-consuming work associated with real-world experiments.

The Robotics and Autonomous Systems journal, aka. RAS, is perhaps the most well-suited journal in the field of robotics at the moment. In general, the review process is considerably faster than the alternatives (between 3 to 5 months), and the quality of the revisions is undoubtedly above the average, with always 3 or more reviewers for each report. The current editors, in particularly Prof. R. Dillmann, usually handle the decision process quite fast (around 1 week between each phase) and minor revisions are assessed without going back to the reviewers in most situations. Note that this does not mean that the review process lakes quality. In fact, it is quite the opposite and the progressive evolution of RAS impact factor over the last few years says it all.

To sum it up, if I would have to advise any roboticist on a good journal, with a considerably fast and fair review process, RAS would be the way to go. It has a broad scope within robotics field and publishes a large number of papers per year (around 100).
19.5 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: I have applied a complicated mathematical method in a geostistical application. The reviwers was familiar with application but unfamiliar with my new approach basics. Hence I have some difficulties with them. However I should emphasize that some of their comments was usefull and help improve my paper.
43.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: Lengthy reviewing time.
One of the referees simply said that the manuscript did not add to the literature without no further justifications or comments. The second referee was constructive, with a long and well written report suggesting several modifications.
43.4 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review was fair and constructive, and special appreciation for the linguistic assistance for non native English speaking author..
10.0 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The assistant editor was very thorough, both scientifically and with respect to writing. The manuscript was significantly improved by interaction with this assistant editor, and further improvements were made by the chief editor.
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was fine and smooth regardless of final outcome, the way is supposed to be
30.4 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
6 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very rigorous, and handled in a very professional manner. I received some very challenging reviews, but the consequence is that the articles were greatly improved, over-broad assertions were pruned back to defensible positions, and the subject matter was completely vetted. Given that the articles constituted a long-view historical treatment of research developments of hundreds of researchers, it was very important to get everything right. The Computer Music Journal and the MIT Press were good allies in the process of obtaining the very best work from me.
1.0 weeks
1.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very fast even with four reviewers. The total process from first submission to acceptance after revision took only about ten days. However, I have recently had another paper accepted by the journal (not yet published) and the review process was a bit longer with only two reviwers. But still fast (I will submit ratings here for that review process later)
4.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Serious journal that respect the timing
17.4 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
2
Accepted
Motivation: They spend 4 months with my article without any feedback. Later it was accepted.
17.4 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was too long. The journal did not respond my emails when I asked for an update of the manuscript status.
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
2
Accepted
Motivation: waiting for 9-11 month to show our paper online is not productive for a researchers.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: This is the first time I submitted a research paper to MST and I am fully satisfied with the review process as well as editorial assistance.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
0.3 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Comunication with Editorial office was very good.
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very serious and professional in all the steps
Immediately accepted after 95.5 weeks
Accepted (im.)
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: The Editor did not realise that the reviewer were not competent in the field