Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Applied Mathematics Letters
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I received two very positive reports. One recommended acceptance as was, whereas the second one asked for minor revision. The reviewers made comments about the content of the manuscript, showing that they really read the paper and were able to understand it completely. Moreover, as in the journal's description, the whole process as really fast.
Mathematical Physics Analysis and Geometry
27.4 weeks
36.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: This was a pleasant experience at all stages of the publication process. The reviews were elaborate, and one of the reviewers suggested a reference giving a missing link between the newly introduced notions and the known ones; this was what the author has been searching for many years. In the final stage, the corrected proofs (galleys) were provided for checking (after processing the uncorrected proofs), for the first time in the whole author's career. It was nice to have an opportunity to check that all the corrections have been properly incorporated.
Journal of Contemporary European Studies
6.3 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Brain and Cognition
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Critical Review
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Sensory Studies
Immediately accepted after 8.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Neuropsychologia
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
PLoS ONE
10.6 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
PNAS
3.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Our manuscript was handled quickly and we got great feedback in the first round of revisions. These comments improved the quality of the paper. We then got another round of revisions with one of the reviewers unconvinced by some of our arguments. We had to extensively rebut their comments and also mentioned to the editor that the tone and brevity of the remaining reviewer's comments made it seem like the reviewer would not objectively evaluate the paper. I don't believe the manuscript got sent to the reviewer before the editor made the decision to accept the paper. I think the handling of the manuscript and the quality of reviews were fantastic, but it was a shame we had to fight one of the reviewers the way we had to,
Biological Conservation
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editor initially sent the manuscript to two reviewers, one of which recommended publication with minor revisions and the other that recommended rejection. The editor then sent the manuscript to an additional reviewer, which extended the review process considerably. The third reviewer recommended rejection. As the recommendations for rejection were based primarily on reviewer biases (i.e. the manuscript addresses a contagious topic on pollution management), the editor was fair and recommended either an additional analysis and new submission or we submit elsewhere (and provided example journals). I would submit to Biological Conservation again, but I would be cautious of the timeline as the decision to only send the manuscript to two reviewers (which I could see through the tracking platform) resulted in a longer than needed review timeline.
Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Economy of Region
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Spatial Economics
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Geography, Environment, Sustainability
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Comparative Politics
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Oral Diseases
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Science and Technology of Advanced Materials
3.6 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Quite solid and fair reviews (one more so than the other), and solid editorial process overall. Only the overly aggressive copyediting took more work to fix than it should have.
Scientific Reports
12.9 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript was handled very well. It took a while before an editor was assigned, but once it got assigned, we received the review reports rather fast, they were useful to improve the manuscript (it did not require heavy work as they were minor comments in general). After 1 round we resubmitted and 3 reviewers (2 from before and 1 new) checked the manuscript and accept for publication was the final decision. No further changes were asked.
Journal of Applied Phycology
2.6 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent review process, fast reviews, constructive reviews that improved the manuscript. Recommend journal for papers in the field of phycology.
Atmospheric Pollution Research
13.0 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Review process quite fast, publication after acceptance also very quick
Nutrients
4.3 weeks
5.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very quick and the review comments were
very polite.　The points raised by the reviewers were important.
PLoS Genetics
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Biophysical Journal
7.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Psychiatric Research
20.9 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
1
Rejected
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
3.3 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Energy
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Renewable Energy
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
FASEB Journal
4.9 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, this review process was good, but it was slow. Reviewers had minor comments, but it took an incredibly long time to get feedback on resubmission.
Electoral Studies
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
25.9 weeks
25.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were detailed and raised reasonable concerns. The process was very slow and did not offer up-to-date insights into the progress.
Pacific Journal of Mathematics
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Handling was reasonably fast, and the report was honest and to the point. Referee also pointed out to few math typos to fix.
International Migration Review
14.3 weeks
44.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
Scientific Reports
2.6 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Socius
9.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: A reasonably quick turnover compared to other journals, and especially the decision not to send out the manuscript a second time actually speeds up things considerably.
Journal of Conflict Resolution
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Bioresource Technology
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The review reports received were interesting, however it was a bit strange that it ended with a rejection as they did not seem that negative.
Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering
19.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall the process was nice. The only hickup was that editorial manager showed that the first round of reviews were completed approximately one and a half months before we were informed about the decision.
Science of the Total Environment
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: The two reviewers made fair points and the comments were very critical. We think they did not understand the innovative aspect of the manuscript, and the limitations we had.