Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Economics Bulletin
21.9 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Stem Cells
4.4 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Stem Cells
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Marine Policy
8.7 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
American Journal of Political Science
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review process, high quality reviews, and friendly correspondence with the editor!
African Development Review
39.7 weeks
70.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Engineering Structures
13.0 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Science
7.4 weeks
81.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Accepted
NDT & E International
8.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
NDT & E International
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
PLoS ONE
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
4
Accepted
Hematology
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
4
Accepted
Blood
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Rejected
Transfusion
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
8 reports
5
5
Accepted
American Journal of Infection Control
7.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very helpful and constructive advice in sharpening the draft.
Applied Catalysis, B: Environmental
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good reviewers comments.
Fast procedure
Journal of Cultural Economics
21.7 weeks
24.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is fast and in depth.
Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials
5.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I have submitted a different article to the same journal and was rejected. The reviewers comments were, in my opinion, unfair. I have emailed the editor asking him to give me the opportunity to defend my article. He did not even reply my email. I would like to suggest that authors of the rejected articles being given an opportunity, if they like, to defend them.
Cytometry, Part A
4.0 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The comments were valid, focused on scientific quality and the changes made the paper better in the end. For me who publish in a trans-disciplinary field it was important to have extarnals read it to make sure the language and approach was understandable for experts from different fields.
Journal of Plant Protection Research
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
Environmental Microbiology
5.9 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The duration of the whole process could have been shorter but as such went very well and reasonably fast.
Cancer Treatment Reviews
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Cancer Treatment Reviews
3.7 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Applied Thermal Engineering
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Current Biology
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Current Biology
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Animal Ecology
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Animal Ecology
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was rejected because it was deemed to species specific.
Journal of Biological Chemistry
6.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Sociology of Education
13.3 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Energies
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Applied Catalysis, A: General
3.9 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Plant Protection Research
8.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: There was a delay in publication process after final acceptance
Lancet
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fantastic efficiency and good peer review comments
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.