Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Science of the Total Environment
4.3 weeks
7.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Great experience. The review process was fast and reviewers raised good and constructive points.
Hong Kong Medical Journal
10.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
iScience
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We received a notification about rejecting the manuscript from the editor on April 5, due to the manuscript does not fit editorial criteria.
Globalization and Health
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: We submitted to this journal twice in the past. The editors were very professional and provided useful and pertinent comments. The review quality was good. In general, we had a pleasant experience with this journal: fast, efficient and good review quality. I would submit here again.
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
n/a
n/a
152 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We submitted our manuscript to Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology (BMC) in early December 2021. We received a confirmation of receipt after this. According to the submission system, the journal tried to find reviewers for the manuscript. Unfortunately, this was not the case. We inquired about the current status two times and offered help in finding suitable reviewers. On both occasions, we received the same reply stating that they tried to find reviewers. After more than 5 months, our manuscript was desk rejected after internal peer review. No reasons were given. We received news that there was a technical error and the journal apologized in a very impersonal way. We were highly disappointed - particularly with regard to the fact that we inquired two times about the manuscript status. We cannot recommend this journal.
Political Science Research and Methods
n/a
n/a
50 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
BMC Public Health
21.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: My experience is in accordance with other reviews here. The review process is very slow and the communication with the journal is not good. Our submitted manuscript was sent for peer review and we received reports after 5 months. We resubmitted the revised manuscript within 2.5 weeks addressing all the comments. We felt that one reviewer report was very professional, the other reviewer was not experienced in the field. Afterwards, something surprising happened. We received comments from two _new_ reviewers. Their comments requested the exact opposite as the first two reviewers. Our manuscript was rejected. I would not submit here again. It is a waste of time with poor communication. I may add that our manuscript was sent back once randomly: a person in the editorial office hit the wrong button (and apologized for it). I would not recommend BMC Public Health.
Nutrients
4.7 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was sent out for external peer review fast. We received comments from 3 reviewers. The comments helped us to improve the quality of the article. We were asked to revise the methodology and statistical part of the manuscript. The handling editor responded quickly.
IEEE Access
17.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Drawn back
Motivation: I cannot believe how incompetent IEEE Access were. It took us more than 11months to get through the peer review process. After the first peer review round (that took almost 4 months), we addressed the reviewers comments. After resubmitting the manuscript, the paper was went to one of the same reviewers who outright said it is acceptable for publication without any further edits. The second reviewer asked us to add one reference and to reorganize a paragraph. The editor still recommended revising and resubmission. We implemented the changes and sent it again for review. However after we sent it, the peer reviewing process took 5+ months. We contacted the journals more than 4 times and every time, we got a reply saying that the reviewers are still reviewing the changes, without further clarifications.

IEEE access usually gives the reviewers 10-14 days to review articles, so this was completely uncommon.

Also, the reasons why the editor rejected the manuscript, while all reviewers accepted it were unknown and we never got a response on why this decision was made.

After all this hassle, we finally decided to withdraw our manuscript and send it to another journal.

Very bad publication experience.
Acta Geotechnica
15.3 weeks
30.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
16.0 weeks
39.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews is fine. However, I experienced the review process as rather slow (especially 2nd and 3rd round which were only minor changes). Also the period after acceptance took more than 4 months.
Cell Reports
10.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Long revision process but after one round of revision it was accepted. Initial comments were helpful but one reviewer misunderstood the manuscript. After revisions the manuscript has improved significantly and all three reviewers were satisfied.
Genome Biology
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Genome Research
n/a
n/a
37 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Bioinformatics
6.7 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Applied Materials Today
5.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fast handling. No complaints.
Advanced Materials
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Progress in Materials Science
n/a
n/a
304 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We don't have a response yet, 1 year after submission, even after contacting the Editor.
Materials Today
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Almost two months for desk rejection.
Journal of Controlled Release
3.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast handling. Totally recommend it.
Advanced Materials
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The handling was fast. One reviewer highly recommended it with lots of compliments. The other one criticized it, was skeptical, and said there are no clinical and in vivo data yet, which is not entirely true.
Advanced Functional Materials
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Small
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Nanotechnology
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Advanced Healthcare Materials
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: This was a transfer from Advanced Materials. The same negative reviewer was called, and the manuscript rejected.
Nano Today
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety
3.0 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast handling.
Plant Cell
5.6 weeks
10.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Behaviour Research and Therapy
25.1 weeks
34.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Molecular Ecology
6.3 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers spent a lot of time giving very clear and helpful constructive criticism. The process was fair. I needed to make a lot of changes during the first revision but the editor let me have a year and then extended it when I asked (covid-related delays to work). The changes made absolutely improved the paper.
Journal of Global Information Management
20.9 weeks
25.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Timely and promptly replied to my queries and actions were taken when needed.
Journal of Political Economy
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Courteous editor letter with some constructive comments.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
17.0 weeks
37.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Cell Science
8.1 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were detailed and of high quality and helped improve the manuscript.
Communicating with the journal was easy and the process was clear.
Angiogenesis
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The statement informing us about the editorial decision was very short and not helpful for future submissions.
Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision
7.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer quality was good. Their paper submission and tracking system is convenient.
Epidemics
10.3 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
International Journal of Advertising
13.3 weeks
36.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Surface Review and Letters
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected by Surface and Coatings Technology, but after we submitted almost the same thing to another Q1 journal, it was accepted.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
10.9 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted