• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• ...
• 129
• ...
• 257
• 258
• Next »

Filter

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome
Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry	11.3 weeks	11.3 weeks	n/a	0	n/a	5 (excellent)	Accepted
European Journal of Emergency Medicine	n/a	n/a	5.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Marketing Intelligence and Planning	n/a	n/a	18.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Environment, Development and Sustainability	n/a	n/a	8.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology	n/a	n/a	14.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Language Learning and Technology	9.7 weeks	17.7 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
	Motivation: Precise and justified decisions, timely review, quality review reports, sensible comments from the reviewers, and logical acceptance of the revision. The only limitation (but not linked to the review process) in my opinion is the strict word limit and the time to publication after being accepted (but they are in a process of improving the time to publication).
Nature Communications	n/a	n/a	23.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Regional Studies in Marine Science	13.1 weeks	30.9 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
	Motivation: After 10 months since the paper submits, two major revisions and two minor revisions, the paper was accepted. Editors are polite.
Process Safety Progress	n/a	n/a	1.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Regional Studies in Marine Science	7.0 weeks	10.0 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted
	Motivation: Journal editors were easy to contact and provided quick response. The revision rounds were fairly quick and of very good quality.
Time and Society	6.8 weeks	6.8 weeks	n/a	2	2 (moderate)	3 (good)	Rejected
	Motivation: Handling was ok. Both reviews were short, one 331 words, the other just one sloppy sentence, even without caring for correct grammar. While the first addressed some minor and one major point and not conluding a decision, the second was an advice against publication but with a ridiculously superficial discussion. The editor did not explain the decision. I would wish that such reviews as #2 are rejected by editors, however the editorial process was okay.
Human Mutation	1.4 weeks	11.0 weeks	n/a	4	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
	Motivation: The requested studies took a long time (particularly during the pandemic) and I felt that given all the extra work I wish that I had simply moved to another journal given the very strongly opinionated reviewer that made request but outside of a full animal study nothing would have been enough.
Parkinsonism and Related Disorders	n/a	n/a	5.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking	32.7 weeks	48.4 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
	Motivation: Overall, the reviewers commented on the work in detail, and the editor's summary was also very helpful in improving the paper. However, one of the reviewers kept on insisting on adding very tangential papers in the related works section written by the same author. I believe this is not good practice among the reviewers of a journal widely recognized as the best in the field of computer networks.
Animation	n/a	n/a	30.4 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
	Motivation: as my manuscript was rejected but I have to say that the immediate action was so good and the chief editor of the journal sent me the reason for rejection very respectfully and logically which I didn't found in any other Journal before.
Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia	n/a	n/a	44.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
	Motivation: First, we waited for 6 weeks before being informed that the manuscript was going to be sent to reviewers. After all, the manuscript was not reviewed by external reviewers and decision was made by one of the editors in chief. The reviewer's comments were not very relevant to the topic of the manuscript. There was no discussion on the technical part or scientific gaps in the paper. We had a high expectation from this journal but the review process is very poor. We believe the review process is not very professional. The article was rejected with not proper consideration and based on a single opinion without processing to the associate editor and reviewers despite we have received a compliment that the manuscript is interesting within the same paragraph.
Journal of urban ecology	26.0 weeks	26.0 weeks	n/a	1	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
	Motivation: This submission was hands down the most unprofessional submission I have ever experienced (and I have experienced many). I would never submit to this journal again.
International Journal of Public Sector Management	20.1 weeks	25.0 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Nurse Education in Practice	14.6 weeks	14.6 weeks	n/a	3	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
	Motivation: The editor made a decision to reject my manuscript based on the feedback from three reviewers. Reviewer 1 wrote their feedback in Portuguese which was then translated by Google translator into English. If a reviewer is unable to write 254-word review in English, then it is hard to believe that they thoroughly understood a 2912-word manuscript written in English. Reviewer 2 claimed that there were "A lot of methodological elements have not been adequately described". Those elements were regarding the sample size estimation, the process of recruitment, and the process of data collection. Obviously, these comments could have been revised and addressed through conducting a second round of submission. Reviewer 3 asked only for a very minor change in the conclusion of the manuscript. After getting the decision email, I sent an email to the journal editorial office and was hoping that the managing editor would at least acknowledge receiving my email. However, that has not happened. Overall, this has been one of the worst experiences I have ever had with a scientific journal.
Psychology, Crime and Law	26.0 weeks	62.9 weeks	n/a	4	3 (good)	2 (moderate)	Accepted
	Motivation: review process is incredibly slow.
Journal of Risk	n/a	n/a	34.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
	Motivation: The very long process only for understanding whether it is suitable for the journal or not!
International Journal of Modern Anthropology	1.9 weeks	1.9 weeks	n/a	1	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
	Motivation: Two weeks after the manuscript was sent for review, I received the following response: "After review, sorry it is not possible to publish your Symposium Review in our journal for a number of reasons. Thank you again for taking an interest in our journal"
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization	52.1 weeks	52.1 weeks	n/a	0	n/a	0 (very bad)	Rejected
	Motivation: After one year without any response I had to withdraw my manuscript, the support kept giving me the same answers and the editor was not responding.
mSystems	4.0 weeks	4.0 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Rejected
	Motivation: Fairly quick and useful reviews. The editorial standard was quite high.
mSphere	0.9 weeks	1.1 weeks	n/a	0	n/a	4 (very good)	Accepted
	Motivation: Transferred from another ASM journal after external peer review. Re-reviewed only by a senior editor, who requested a minor revision. Together with the previous round of review, ASM's manuscript handling was overall streamlined and satisfiable.
Frontiers in Neurology	n/a	n/a	6.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Briefings in Bioinformatics	3.3 weeks	3.3 weeks	n/a	4	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
	Motivation: The article was sent to review and the 4 reviewers provided very deep and useful review reports. The article was then rejected unfortunately, but the review reports were precious to improve my article.
IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing	1.0 weeks	1.0 weeks	n/a	1	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
	Motivation: There were two reviewers, who gave their feedback. The first reviewer have just formulated few generic comments as "After reading multiple times also, I did not understand", "Problem motivation is missing" - Where as all these points where highlighted in separate sections. So, the clear understanding is, the submitted works are been reviewed by some reviewers, who do not have the right mindset to read through the complete paper. The highlight of the review process is the second reviewer mentioned "I completely agree with the first reviewer" - This is my first time seeing a review comment like this and I guess for everyone reading this will have the same reaction.
Political Communication	n/a	n/a	31.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
	Motivation: Very slow for a desk reject.
Anthropological Review	Immediately accepted after 14.7 weeks						Accepted (im.)
Transplantation Proceedings	4.3 weeks	4.3 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	3 (good)	Accepted
	Motivation: Acceptable reviewer quality. Relatively quick action from submission to decision/revision.
Language Teaching Research	n/a	n/a	14.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules	8.7 weeks	10.7 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Sexualities	11.4 weeks	11.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Nature Reviews: Cancer	n/a	n/a	5.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
	Motivation: Pros: fast first editorial decision. Cons: pre-submission enquire was not effective in determining the editorial decision. We were invited to submit the full manuscript, which was then rejected without peer-review.
Journal of Language, Identity & Education	14.0 weeks	39.3 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted
	Motivation: Generally, the reviews were useful. They improved the overall quality of the work. However, the review process, especially for the second round, was very long.
Sociologicky Casopis	15.4 weeks	37.9 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
European Journal of Dental Education	6.1 weeks	6.1 weeks	n/a	1	1 (bad)	2 (moderate)	Rejected
	Motivation: This paper was now reviewed by one expert on this topic. And although the reviewer indicated that possibly a major revision would be useful, unfortunately, from an editorial point of view it must be concluded that the paper cannot be accepted for publication. The main reason for this is that there already is long line of submitted manuscripts describing Covid -related distance learning.
European Journal of Dental Education	19.6 weeks	29.0 weeks	n/a	1	3 (good)	2 (moderate)	Accepted
Forests	2.3 weeks	3.3 weeks	n/a	3	1 (bad)	3 (good)	Accepted

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• ...
• 129
• ...
• 257
• 258
• Next »