Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Developing Economies
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Science and Medicine
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
17.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
8.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: it took over 2 months for the review, a little bit long
Research on Social Work Practice
6.0 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The highlight of the review process was that it was very fast. The editor was very efficient and responsive. Most of the comments from the reviewers made sense and were very reasonable. Overall it was a positive experience for me.
Economics Letters
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast reply and constructive comment from editor.
Journal of Molluscan Studies
21.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers were anonymous but clearly competent. The editor was particularly attentive to organization of the MS, compliance to journal style and language rules, and related details. Total processing time from submission to publication was less than one year, which I regard as excellent.
International Journal of Acarology
3.3 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: International Journal of acarology (IJA) is a peer-review and well-known journal, usually with a rapid and professional review process. I am satisfactory with all processes of submission, review and publication in this journal and will submit more manuscript to publish in IJA in future.
Transfusion
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Social Science and Medicine
21.7 weeks
46.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Science
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Science and Medicine
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Advances in Life Course Research
10.0 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional editor who had helpful comments on the conflicting reviews.
Annals of Probability
49.9 weeks
49.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Medical Hypotheses
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Psychological Methods
52.1 weeks
106.2 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
2
Accepted
Autism Research
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very slow and it was sent only to 1 reviewer, who was not very experienced in the field of the paper
Journal of Educational Psychology
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The response by the editor was very fast (1 day!!) and provided a good argumentation of why they considered the manuscript unfit for their journal.
Gender and Education
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The topic of the manuscript was considered uninteresting by the editor, but we felt this was mostly due to a very superficial reading of the article (perhaps only the abstract) since they seemed to have misunderstood the exact research topic.
Personality and Social Psychology Review
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor read and informed us swiftly about the decision on the manuscript. He also took the trouble of writing a long and detailed argumentation of why the manuscript was not good enough for the journal, while keeping a respectful and kind tone.
Men and Masculinities
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The review process went fast and smooth. The editor was also very kind and respectful.
Sex Roles
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: While the replies of the editor and reviewers were swift, the process could hardly be called standard policy. For instance, before the manuscript was sent out to any reviewers, the editor already requested adjustments.
We also had the distinct impression that the editor tried to change the tone and content of the article into something completely different (e.g. from a review article into an research article!), and then rejected the article when this turned out to be impossible.
Higher Education Policy
10.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and very transparent, taking only three months from the first submission until accepting the final version.
Journal of Technology Transfer
3.6 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick process but would have liked to receive the actual reports from the reviewers.
Research Policy
n/a
n/a
140 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: An outgoing editor did not pass on submitted papers, leading to a long revision process.
Research Policy
n/a
n/a
69 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International and Comparative Law Quarterly
n/a
n/a
121 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process appeared to be rather unprofessional. The response only came after I asked about the status of the review process. There were no reasons given for the rejection.
Modern Law Review
13.0 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Very professional handling of the review process. The review process was fast and transparent, and the reviews had a high quality. Even though I did not agree with all parts of the reasoning, I could well understand the decision of the editors.
Games and Economic Behavior
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The positive point is the short term of the review process.
Negative point: a 2 lines review mostly suggesting another less ranked journal.
Social Problems
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Ethnic and Racial Studies
19.5 weeks
20.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Sociology of Education
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
International Migration
4.3 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Ethnic and Racial Studies
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
15.2 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast initial , and thorough review, of which one review disagreed with a lot of aspects in the manuscript. The journal was also flexible enough to extend my deadline for resubmission with a week. The decision on acceptance took very long though, and involved me chasing up the editor two times to ask what was happening with my paper. But in the end happy with the process
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
10.0 weeks
20.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quick, double-blind, and seemed fair. The requirements of the editors were based on the reviews and were justified. The only drawback was that one of the three reviews was extremely short and not helpful at all. In my opinion, the editors shouldn't have considered this a proper review.
Archaeological Prospection
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Archaeological Prospection
10.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Sociological Methods and Research
n/a
n/a
158 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very polite answer from the editor. Submission was handled relatively professionally, although the communication with the journal did not work always well (we received an acnkowledgement of receipt for our submission only 1.5 months after our submission and only after having sollicited for an answer).
European Journal of Health Economics
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: The review's comments were full of grammatical mistakes. There were no suggestions in the comments on how to improve the paper. The comments also seem unnecessarily harsh.