Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
3.3 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: This was a resubmission from a paper that was originally rejected (revise and resubmit). The paper was revised and resubmitted and ultimately accepted.
4.3 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Handling of the manuscript went smoothly, reviewers provided an insightful, useful review.
3.7 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
23.7 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
3
Rejected
Motivation: It took quite a while to get three very brief reviews with rather generic feedback. I don't envy the editors to make a decision on that basis.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 35.0 days
Drawn back
7.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
5.6 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.3 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: One of the best journals in this field. The process was overall smooth.
11.6 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review reports are of good quality overall speaking, and the review process took moderate time length.
8.6 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor handled our manuscript professionally. Comments from the reviewers are very helpful in strengthening the manuscript.
8.9 weeks
33.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, I was pleased with the process and outcome. Great and personable editor!
3.1 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast, fair comments. The editor also provided useful comments on the manuscript, and made a very fast decision.
Immediately accepted after 11.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
3.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was professional and the reviewer was shown to extract errors in the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
23.1 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: smooth and fast process with high-quality reports
24.0 weeks
53.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editor did not give any comment, fully referring to the reviewers, and did not even sign by name. The reviews were not very critical, but the manuscript was rejected outright. On the positive side, the process was very fast.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
18.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The swift communication from editors facilitates a smooth publication journey, while the detailed and relevant feedback from expert reviewers enhances the scholarly value of each article.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Rejected
Immediately accepted after 1.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: Transfered from Advanced science with peer-reviewed comments, we directly submitted revised manuscript to Small. Editor then asked for a minor revision and accepted it.
21.1 weeks
30.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
3.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
24.0 weeks
58.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Drawn back
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.4 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Handling of manuscript was very good, review time was fast, reviews had a good quality and reviewers were interested in improving the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)