Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Psychology of Violence
26.6 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: There was one review that was flawed and the reviewer did not read the article thoroughly and one review that was only a few sentences. There were no issues that could not be resolved with very minor edits. The special issue editor said that the content did not fit the special issue even though we initial reached out and confirmed that the topic was of interest to the special issue editors. We wasted 7 months for no reason.
Brazilian Journal of International Law
32.6 weeks
32.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Accepted
Cancers
2.0 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Drawn back
Motivation: Good journaL. jhgd is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). jhgd takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peer-review together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Policy Futures in Education
8.1 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was smooth and fairly timely. The quality of the reviews was so-so. Overall, I would consider submitting to this journal again and recommend it to others.
Cuadernos del Cendes
4.0 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Scientific Reports
7.0 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The revision process went very smooth and the editors were eager to accept our request for the extension. It was however reasonable due to the number of requested changes and some problems related to pandemics which impeded our accessibility.

The reviewers were insightful and raised many important questions that directed us in improving the paper. The reviewers were able to
- demonstrate they know the topic from a psychological and medical perspective
- indicate several formal/technical inconsistencies (some of them could have been annoying and therefore we are thankful for their patience and understanding)
- go through our database and make useful suggestions on data interpretation
- encourage us to give more information on the procedure (the manuscript is more transparent)

We slightly disagreed with a few suggestions but, on the whole, their work is much appreciated.

Frontiers in Fungal Biology
4.4 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Umweltpsychologie
16.7 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very easygoing. Directly in touch with non-anonymus reviewer, everything could be directly discussed.
Nature Neuroscience
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Without trying to sound bitter that the paper was desk rejected (which of course can happen), my impression is that Nature Neuroscience is very, very slow relative to comparable journals (like Neuron, for example).
Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal
12.7 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
1
Accepted
Earth's Future
n/a
n/a
56 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Spent 70+ days in review with a desk reject stating that manuscript was not a fit for the journal despite similar work in the journal. No reviews and no further justification. Not submitting to this journal again.
Nature Communications
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: I am an experienced researcher with more than 30 peer-reviewed papers published in Q1 journals and more than 12 years of research experience. This has been the worst experience ever in my career in a review process. The quality of 2 of the 3 review reports was absolutely dreadful and the editorial team was completely unable to make their own judgement. I would neve submit a paper to Nature Communications again and I would never recommend anyone to do so. It has been a total waste of time and a very frustrating experience.
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review was fast in my opinion, regarding the needs to publish COVID-19 related articles
Nano Letters
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
1.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
RSC Advances
7.6 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: All the reviewers comments were really helpful and justified. Overall I am very satisfied about the review process and the outcome.
Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research
21.7 weeks
22.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review is good, but it's quite too long time, however the overall comments were good.
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
Race and Justice
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Rejected
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
7.1 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was relatively rapid. Two positive reviews were obtained quickly. The reviews were very brief and limited in content but indicated an understanding of the paper and the suggestions were reasonable.
Current Psychology
19.3 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process could be faster than this. The handling editor rendered their decision a month after when all external review reports were submitted. The overall quality of the external review reports was fair.
RSC Analyst
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This journel rejected my paper without sending it to reviewer. However, the editor recommended that I submit the manuscript to a different section that would fit better to my topic. This recommendation was very helpful and the manuscript was accepted in this new section.
Blood
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Rejected
Motivation: Had a nice review process with Blood. Smooth submission and relatively fast turnaround seeing as it was sent to two external reviewers. While a rejection is fine, some of the issues they found were actually addressed in the paper & stemmed from the reviewers simply skimming the paper. A bit frustrating but understandable given high impact journals are certainly swamped with submissions. I would have preferred a longer wait to allow the reviewers time to actually thoroughly read and understand the article.
Molecular Ecology Resources
12.0 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
9.6 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: - High quality of review feedback, it contributed to improve significantly the manuscript
- Clear information and guidelines for authors
- Initial review phase's time was appropriate, review phase after minor revisions was comparatively long
- Quick response by support team when reaching out via e-mail
- Submission platform was perfectly
Frontiers in Environmental Science
4.0 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Frontiers in Bioscience-Landmark
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Really impressed by the quick evaluation by a senior editor and main editor where it was recommended as a full manuscript to ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.
Scientific Reports
28.2 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing and editorial process was very slow. I sent an corresponding email 3 times without respond. I have to contact the customer suport for their help, which thay told me there is some issue about the editorial process that make the decision took more than 6 months. In general, this is a good journal and the reviewers' comments were good, but the editorial process was too slow (maybe due to COVID?).
PNAS
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Do you think this review process was ethical?
Human Genetics
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Expert Systems with Applications
73.9 weeks
73.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: First review round took 73.9 weeks (17 months)! Moreover, during that time period the corresponding author inquired the status of the manuscript five (5) times using the publisher's submission system option. These inquiries were never answered. The manuscript was progressed towards the decision only when the senior author of the manuscript send personal email to the Editor in chief. The two of the received reviews were obviously very short (256 and 168 words long respectively), quickly written and generic (not referring to details in the manuscript). I do not advise colleagues to send papers to Expert Systems With Applications.
Child Abuse and Neglect
10.7 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Pain
3.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Business Horizons
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
1.1 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process is thorough and seemingly fair. The reviews were appropriate. My biggest problem with this journal is their arcane submission and review process. A paper that was very well received by reviewers and that required relatively minor revisions still took more than one year between initial submission and publication. If you are concerned about timeliness of publication, or being scooped, this is not your journal.
American Heart Journal
15.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Solid State Ionics
49.3 weeks
61.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: The initial review process took over a year, because the editor was not able to find suitable reviewers and reviewers who agreed to the task did not answer anymore afterwards. So finally, the editor reviewed the paper himself. I know he is very knowledgeable in this field, but I find it a bit disappointing, that no other reviewers answered back.