Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
5.2 weeks
9.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The best thing with this journal :
1. Faster review process
2. Better feedback after review
21.7 weeks
27.1 weeks
n/a
7 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process of this journal is satisfing.
3.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
26.0 weeks
99.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Accepted
5.0 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The suggestions of reviewers were correct, very useful and well formulated. The editor also made good suggestions on the last version of the manuscript.
9.0 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Thanks
7.3 weeks
24.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: Thanks
8.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editors were very picky regarding permissions from journals for using data from other articles in a table (explicitly identified as being from another source). it was difficult to get the permissions (especially from Elsevier) and this added about a month onto the process after the editorial acceptance of the article
7.0 weeks
10.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The overall experience was very good. Reviewers provided constructive comments that helped to improve the manuscript. Waiting ca. 2 month for a review response was acceptable, given the length of the manuscript. At the proof stage, correspondence with the editorial team helped a lot to quickly finalize the layout.
8.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Accepted
Motivation: It took extremely long, the internet system did not work properly, I had to send emails many times to hear back about my manuscript, etc...
5.7 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Given the great difference in the opinions of the two reviewers, the editor made a huge effort to personally check the MS, acting as third reviewer and reconsidering the work as worth to be published.
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: the overall process was OK. The review was very constructive. It just took too long between the acceptance and the proofs. Publication occured even at a later stage (early 2011) although the corrected proofs were already online since october, 26 2010.
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Rejected
7.9 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editors of this journal were very responsive to my questions and concerns; they responded quickly to any emails I sent and were easy to work with. The review process was efficient as well. This was an invited submission to a special issue (though it still went out for peer review), so I'm not sure if the process was any different than a standard submission.
21.9 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
16.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
6.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
25.1 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
9.7 weeks
40.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Accepted
8.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor took an active role in the review, clearly carefully reading both the reviewer comments and our responses. The reviewers were constructive in their comments, and willing to accept arguments made about how or why things were done as they were. Finally, the submission process is very straightforward: only a simple PDF, with minimal formatting, is needed. All major formatting is done after acceptance, which would save a lot of time if the paper is eventually rejected.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
7.6 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick but thorough review process
Many reviewers (5 in our case), who's comments can improve the paper
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
21.7 weeks
28.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Accepted
Motivation: too much time for review. reviews only wanted reorganisation and push some data to supplementary material
Immediately accepted after 0.9 weeks
Accepted (im.)
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The review provided was not from a specialist in the field and contained suggestions that were not pertinent to the research. The rejection was contested and the paper was accepted by editorial decision.
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Turn around time with reviewers was very quick, queries on initial submission were answered on the same day. Automated submission system is very efficient.
6.6 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The Biochemical Journal handles the submission/review/revision and decision process extremely professionally. Email confirmations from the automated submission system are clear and interaction with the staff generates quick and efficient replies.
4.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Acting as an editor myself I know that it becomes more and more complicated to identify colleagues willing to act as a reviewer and to respond in time. Therefore editors tend to rely on "fast responding colleagues". These have developed some routine in handling manuscripts, but they are not necessarily outstanding experts in the field of research an individual manuscript is dealing with. Therefore it may be quite complicated to have a manuscript accepted if its topic is not trendy or if it is trans-disciplinary rather than focusing on a specific aspect.
5.0 weeks
11.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
17.4 weeks
46.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
10.0 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent communication. Good reviews. Great editorial work
8.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was very fast and very efficient. The Editor himself also suggested small changes that improved the manuscript. I felt that my manuscript received all the necessary attention, and the proofs had almost no errors. I am very happy with the whole procedure.
26.0 weeks
32.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers were very helpful, clearly well chosen for style of paper.
Timely production, on par with other journals and much better than some. Delay between acceptance and production was to a large extend due to the time that I took to make corrections.
8.7 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
0.7 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted