Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
32.5 weeks
58.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Accepted
Journal of Clinical Nursing
8.6 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
PLoS Medicine
6.7 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: the whole process was smooth, timely, and professional. the journal chose fair reviewers with subject matter expertise.
16.4 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The waiting time for a response from a potential referee was too long. In the end, another referee was contacted.
Renewable Energy
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers found that my paper was not novel.
Media, Culture and Society
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
American Journal of Political Science
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Data were too old; but with a changing media landscape I guess this is not entirely unreasonable.
ACS Applied Nano Materials
3.0 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
5
Accepted
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
10.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
2
Rejected
Applied Intelligence
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Molecular Liquids
3.7 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Research Policy
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
PLoS ONE
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: We received a rejection after the peer review. The process was quick and fast (<1 month). The review reports were detailed and I do appreciate the comments from the reviewer.
Nano Letters
3.9 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Royal Society Open Science
19.0 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial and peer-review process was quite long, and the status on the manuscript central was not updated to show the actual status of our paper at the different stages. This meant we spent a lot of time trying to get answers from the editor(s) about the paper, as we had not heard from them in months at one point.
Advanced Functional Materials
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: (appropriately) transferred to a sister journal
Nature Cell Biology
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Ecological Modelling
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
2
Accepted
Motivation: I submitted my paper and waited more than 20 weeks (Average is 9 weeks). They said that they received the review from a reviewer, and need to wait two more. They sent to others reviewers again. There is no thing happen.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Dr. Cassidento, the editor-in-chief of AAG, is very responsive and professional. Prof. Ling Bian rejected the manuscript as being out of their scope. AAG is very good.
International Migration
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Neuroscience
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
Politics and Religion
6.4 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
mBio
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fairly quick initial screening.
Nature Neuroscience
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
0
Accepted
Frontiers in Earth Science
9.1 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review of the revised manuscript was very long because one of the reviewers in the first round "disappeared." The editor had to find another peer which proved to be very problematic during the COVID period. Despite all these problems, the editor was very helpful and answered the questions quickly.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
14.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: Extremely slow processing and review time. Poor submission experience with AJOG.
Central European Geology
4.3 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite rapid, however one of the referees was not really competent.
International Urogynecology Journal
6.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Slower than anticipated for review process. Reviews very brief.
The Gerontologist
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor gave me valuable feedback and comments for the first half of the MS. She encouraged me to re-send it again if I wished to make substantial improvements: In several places more information was needed. And the results did not reflect what would be reported in the analytical approach chosen.
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems
46.1 weeks
46.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
Motivation: This Journal has worst review system. The handling time is too long. The reviewers and editors are not helpful at all.
Religious Studies
5.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The whole review process was professional. The comments of the referees are helpful.
International Journal of Management Reviews
16.3 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Nature Genetics
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: as always, rejected without review.
Social Science and Medicine
13.7 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Our experience with the journal was quite positive. Everyone from the editorial office to the reviewers was quite good. We could not submit the manuscript on time during the first round of revision, and editors were quite ok in providing us additional time as the article required significant revisions.

Reviewers critiqued the paper in a way that we never felt bad about, and it was always done to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Land Use Policy
n/a
n/a
122 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: As the status of my manuscript has remained unchanged, I asked 62 days after submission if there has been any further progress on my submission. I just received a standard answer that my manuscript is currently undergoing editorial assessment. Finally, I got a desk rejection after 122 days. I am frustrated of waiting, since I am currently completing a PhD, I am depended on a quick review.
Nature Climate Change
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées
85.3 weeks
85.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
Motivation: Few weeks after the submission, I was informed that the paper was sent to a referee. But more than one year later, I received the decision of rejection with no referee's report. Afterward, several other colleagues told me that they have experienced the same long-time-rejection.
Manuscrito
6.4 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The whole review process was professional and the referees' comments were helpful.
Ethnic and Racial Studies
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was very supportive, one was utterly dismissive but did not seem to have done more than skim the manuscript. That was enough to sink the paper.
Nature Biotechnology
4.4 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer comments were practical and helpful. Overall, the review process improved the manuscript significantly and was very straightforward.