Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
0.7 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
ISME Journal
11.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: I wasn't satisfied with proofing process after my manuscript was accepted.
The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Drawn back
Motivation: After 3 months I ma still waiting, editor says that the reviewer are busy and they will get to my paper soon, that was 3 weeks ago, now entering 4 month sinc esubmission. Prior experience, took 9 months for reviews abd finally was rejected, only to be publish withni 6 weeks in another journal.
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers and Editor are really professionnal and respectfull. I submitted many times to this journal and I was always treated professionnally
Cognitive Systems Research
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: My experience with Cognitive Systems Research Journal was very positive. The review process improved the article and I was very pleased with the final result.
Language Learning
10.8 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient process throughout. Editor offered many detailed suggestions for improving the final draft.
Sociological Quarterly
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Good journal, fast turn around. Very satisfied.
Journal of South American Earth Sciences
4.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Acta Sociologica
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Current Sociology
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Review was expedient, transparent, and the reviews where well founded.
Scandinavian Political Studies
17.4 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Consciousness and Cognition
4.3 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Biology of Sport
19.5 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Accepted
Motivation: A review report was sent me after several months from submission following to solicitation. Minor revision was requested. The editorial decision came after 1.5 mo. following to solicitation.
Journal of International Development
Immediately accepted after 26.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
EXCLI Journal
8.7 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Waste Management
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Water Resources Research
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C
8.6 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process of submission was not through the on-line system; instead, it was in-person conversation with the editor himself. Very good speed and quality.
Water Policy
60.8 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
Progress in Electromagnetics Research
4.3 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and fair. It improved the clarity of the final manuscript and the whole publicación process was done in only 6 months.
Astronomy and Astrophysics
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
5
Rejected
Motivation: Referee report was unnecessarily offensive. Editors performed adequately.
Science
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
16.1 weeks
26.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Very extense but constructive comments for first revision. I would have liked better to receive a faster answer for first revision, but after that the process was quite agile.
Astronomy and Astrophysics
17.4 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review was thorough and comprehensive, well worth the time I had to wait for it.
Ethnicities
13.0 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Ecological Modelling
15.2 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: I think the reviewers did a very good job at reviewing the paper, which has improved substantially before publication. The reviewing process took a relatively long time, but it was overall satisfactory.
Journal of African Economies
17.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: This was a paper based on an invited oral presentation. One review was brief and identified salient points that the reviewer valued. The second review was longer, asked some good questions and made some helpful suggestions that I could easily respond to with minor revisions.
Mind
47.7 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
International Journal of Hospitality Management
8.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Annals of Tourism Research
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Planta
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Cultural Dynamics
3.0 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
3
Accepted
Policy Sciences
10.8 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Policy Sciences was an excellent journal to work with. At least in our case, reviewers selected demonstrated knowledge of the specific research domain, and raised good questions. The editor is also very professional and timely in responses.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Of the two reviews, one recommended minor revisions and one recommended rejection. Both provided evidence for their recommendations, but the referee recommending rejections actually provided inaccurate evidence (some claims about the data that we could have corrected in an authors' response had we been given the opportunity). The editor rejected the manuscript. I do not think it is professional to reject a manuscript based on one reviewer's recommendation.
Voluntas
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The single reviewer who advised rejection wrote about the "interesting" aspects of our ms, but then offered three minor objections (one of which was that a table was oddly placed!). The concerns could have been addressed in a revision so I did not feel the objections warranted rejection. I think we deserved a chance to respond to the reviewer's suggestions. When I asked the Editor for additional feedback I received no reply. Rejecting a ms on the basis of one poor quality referee report is unprofessional.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research
10.8 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: I have received useful reviews in a reasonable time for the first two rounds of submission. However, the third round of revisions took almost six months.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology
8.7 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: I have received decently useful comments in a reasonable time. Fast online publication before print. However, it may takes up to a year or more before the final version is published.
Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editor works hard to get reviewers comply with the deadlines. In general, I believe he manages well exchanges between authors and reviewers.