Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Elife
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I am greatly disappointed by the very long wait for an initial editorial decision. The only explanation provided was "The insight provided in the paper was felt to be limited". They waited 49 days just to write this for an editorial rejection.

The process I have experienced was completely unprofessional and disrespectful of the work we have put together. We lost many other opportunities as I wanted to publish the outcome of my eLife Ben Barres Spotlight Award in eLife as they encouraged.
Marine Ecology Progress Series
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast desk rejection. The editor read the manuscript and gave positive feedback but said it was not well suited for the broad, international readership of MEPS. He also provided other journals that could be submitted.
NeuroImage: Clinical
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Future Generation Computer Systems
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: An Important Experience to Share!

My Paper Formatting Journey: I spent countless hours formatting my paper according to the journal's guidelines for a Special Issue. Despite the paper's alignment with the Special Issue's theme, it was immediately rejected after the deadline due to not being in the required double-column format. This was despite the author guidelines stating that papers should be written in a single-column format.

Journal's Specific Biases: This journal appears to have specific biases towards certain authors and subjects.

Important Tip: Ensure you understand these biases before investing time in submitting to this journal. If any journal asks to get in their format even on the first submission let us be careful
Journal of Neuroscience
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: JNeuro is very flexible with the formatting, which makes submission relatively straightforward. They suggested that we try transferring our manuscript to eNeuro, which we did.
Accounting, Organizations and Society
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Even if the aims and scope of the journal does not mention it, the potential for contribution of meta-analyses is considered quite small regardless of how well done it may or may not be. The results from our meta-analyses are viewed as fairly well-understood findings that could be pointed out briefly as part of a literature review. In brief, meta-analyses are viewed as useless by the editor-in-chief.
Cancer Cell
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rapid editorial rejection
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
n/a
n/a
96 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took one month to move from "submitted to Journal" to "with Editor" and then two months "With Editor" just to say that the paper was out of scope. Totally unprofessional
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Chief Editor sent a mail saying that the paper I submitted would not be a good fit for the Journal due to the methodology I employed for my study and that it might not be favorably reviewed. They took the time to explain their rationale in a lengthy email, and I appreciated that. They were prompt with their decision (2 days) which helped me submit my manuscript elsewhere without further delays.
Biodiversity and Conservation
n/a
n/a
124 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: One of the worst submissions I've experienced. Four months for nothing
Nano Letters
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: transfer to other ACS sister journals was given
Bioinformatics
n/a
n/a
31 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Lengthly process for the first decision considering the short length of an application note.
Organization Studies
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It appears the editor may have only skimmed the introduction, as some points raised were explicitly addressed in the paper. The critique felt unclear and resembled a standard response.
Science
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Generic rejection without information after more than a month.
PLoS Biology
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was desk rejected after almost one month, with no explanation or feedback... Very disappointing experience
Molecular Ecology
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our paper turned into 'under review' soon after submission. But it turned out to be only within editorial board and rejected after about 5 weeks.
Journal of Happiness Studies
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science Advances
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After submission, the portal indicated no activity for almost three weeks. I then contacted the editorial office requesting an update. They acknowledged the delay, and said that they were trying to get a decision soon. The desk rejection came a day later.
Work and Occupations
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Avoid! Appalling journal, rude editor, incoherent and non-sensical reasons given for not reviewing the paper. Bunch of amateurs.
Higher Education
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Swift response from the editor, with a desk rejection. Reason for rejection and suggestions for submitting to a different journal were given.
Journal of Contemporary China
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: That's the editor's comment: "Because your manuscript failed to pass one or more of the initial screening criteria."
Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I think the response is weird, cause I am totally sure that my work fits perfectly the scope of the journal, as I work on medical images. Furthermore, the status of the paper changed to decision in the process in the same day of the submission, which concludes that the paper wasn't sent for an internal review.
Computers in Biology and Medicine
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The journal has a quick response, but remains doubtful in the selection process, does the editor really check the submitted paper or takes the decision directly from the title ?
Global Ecology and Biogeography
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took very long for a desk rejection.
Molecular Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
52 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Sociological Science
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Excellent internal review, was helpful.
Nutrition Reviews
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 32 days for a desk-rejection is too much for a journal of this caliber.
Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Didn't address the correct (corresponding) author. No appreciation of the article nor reason for rejection. Not signed by editor.
Organization
n/a
n/a
37 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor identified insufficient engagement with the literature published in their journal as a major reason for rejection.
Phytomedicine
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process at Phytomedicine is frustrating and unprofessional. The only feedback one typically receives is a brief statement that the article does not fit the aim and scope of the journal. This lack of transparency and constructive criticism wastes valuable time for researchers. Rather than providing specific guidance or engaging with the content of the submission, the journal dismisses articles with little explanation. Given this, I would not recommend wasting your time on Phytomedicine. There are far more professional and responsive journals to consider.
Current Psychology
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The majority of the similarity arises from the appendix section, which includes standardized survey questions commonly used in prior studies.
Global Change Biology
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast desk rejection, no reason provided.
Economic and Industrial Democracy
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: brief and unsubstantiated explanations, it seems they have not even read the article
Science Translational Medicine
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejection letter was a “standard” mail saying that us not “in the high priority of the journal”. No input from the editor was provided.
international Journal of Qualitative Methods
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was submitted to a special issue and was perfectly tailored to it. However, the rejection letter did not come from the SI Guest Editors. Instead, it was a generic statement indicating that "As there is a high volume of high-quality manuscripts submitted to International Journal of Qualitative Methods, we must often turn away papers that might be publishable but which we do not have sufficient space for, or which fall outside the journal’s scope." So, it appeared as if the submission did not reach the SI Guest Editors before it was rejected.
Immunity
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Got a custom rejection letter stating the underlying molecular mechanism lacking for publication at Immunity with the proposal to transfer to Cell Reports.
International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition
n/a
n/a
74 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Approximately two months for a desk rejection is unacceptable.
Transportation Research, Part D: Transport and Environment
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper submitted dealt with the environmental impact of a specific transport policy. Desktop rejecting the paper as out of scope seems very odd.
Journal of Banking Regulation
n/a
n/a
59 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Studies in Higher Education
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Article not sent for peer review for subjective reasons.