Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The answer was just a generic "stock" email without any explication. It was just saying "we think that your manuscript would be a better fit for another journal".
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor said that was not perfectly fitting with the journal for the lack of molecular mechanism. So s/he suggested to transfer it to NAR Cancer because better fitting for our topic.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Too long a wait period for a desk reject. Very generic reason given for rejection. In the future, I would not submit to Nature Neuroscience unless I am relatively much more sure about acceptance.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The response for desk reject was rather prompt!
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: I have published previously in Applied Energy, but something has changed.
For this paper the first reviewer gave very good comments and advised for acceptance with no modifications.
Second reviewer however had very poor English and suggested outright reject based only on low resolution figures. I supplied vector graphics figures as separate files, but reviewer did not check these.
I do not think the reviewer even read the paper as there was no other justification for the reject. And as the level of English was so poor, I do not think the reviewer could have even understood the text.

The editor did not supply any context for the rejection, and I think the editor did not even check the review comments.
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very kind response of the reviewer.
They could place at the website that they only accept multiple experiment manuscripts.
n/a
n/a
53 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editors apologized for the delay, which was mainly due to the summer break.
26.9 weeks
26.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: It took too long period for review process. Additionally, one of the reviewers did not provide specific comments, but merely gave some general opinions, which even implied discrimination against our case selection. We guess he/she filled with disdain for cases in developing countries.
n/a
n/a
52 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 2 months for desk rejection is unacceptable and very disrespectful. After 2 months without news, I sent a e-mail asking for updates about my manuscript, and then received the desk rejection, with the reason that it was not given high priority during initial assessment.
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers were poor - one clearly hadn't even read the paper (review was less than 2 lines long), and the other I don't think was qualified to review the paper. I understand that need for a fast review process, but they should at least get reviewers who are able to review the manuscript thoroughly.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took too long for a desk rejection.
Motivation: I am very happy with service.
18.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: One of the reviewers reacted very negatively to our manuscript.
That reviewer left comments which suggest the reviewer did not even read the manuscript. After we received the decision of rejection, we begged the editor to change the reviewer to a fair person, but the editor did not reply to us.
This is my worst submission experience ever. Four months of waste.
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was fast, but the reviewers did not seem to have the appropriate domain expertise. The final decision was based on ratings given by the reviewers that are not visible to us.
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: JoPS suggested a transfer to another elsevier journal.
7.9 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers did an excellent job by thoroughly questioning the experimental methods and interpretation of results. This brought us to perform additional analyses, that actually confirmed that our original data handling gave better and more consolidating results. We do not totally regret the time loss, because we learned a lot on different ways of data handling during this rather scary setback.
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript had a quick turn-around and the reviewer comments were informed, straightforward, and applicable to the manuscript.
10.9 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fairly quick and straightforward review process, no second review after a light revise & resubmit (minor revisions). Overall great experience!
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: During the review process, three reviewers were assigned. 29 days later, the decision was made with two review reports. Although it took time, the reports were convincing and highly conducive for improving our manuscript.
4.4 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: It was a high quality, sophisticated, and professional review process
15.0 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very detailed comments by the reviewer.
Motivation: Good handling by the editors, sometimes a bit delay response to questions.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional handling by the editor. Quick and precise response in case of questions.
21.3 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Before submitting my manuscript to this journal, I had heard from colleagues that the review cycle was lengthy, and I was a bit concerned, but based on my personal experience, it didn't appear to be that bad.

I had already submitted this manuscript to another journal, which had undergone revisions. Finally, because the journal is on hold, I drew back the manuscript and submitted it to Sage Open.

I had three reviewers, one of whom was quite experienced and gave many suggestions to improve the article's quality. One reviewer raised a few trivial questions, and another mentioned a few minor issues. Overall, the reviewers' comments on the article appeared positive, and I received a minor revision-no additional reviews.

I received the acceptance letter about two weeks after submitting my revised paper. During this time, I asked once on the status of the paper to the editor.

In summary, my overall impression of this journal is satisfactory, and I will most likely submit to the journal again.
Immediately accepted after 1.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The review period was short, and the submitting process was simple. From the time of application till acceptance, everything went really well.
4.6 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: My first paper that's mostly theoretical, so hard to gauge the reviews, overall a bit slow, but satisfactory.
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Rejected
4.6 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
16.4 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fairly standard review as I'm used it at JEMS, with decent reviews that increased clarity of the manuscript.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Useful and thoughtful reviews, even though rejected. Timely.
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Strange choice of reviewer who was strangely scathing in the legitimacy of the data collection and findings.
Immediately accepted after 11.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Immediately accepted after 0.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I don't face any kind of inconvenience while inserting my manuscript into this journal.
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The only "reviewer comment" was an offer to transfer the paper to Translational Medicine Communications (which is currently neither indexed by PubMed nor Clarivate) "without sending your manuscript out for another round of review". The whole process was a complete waste of time.