Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
379 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Standard desk rejection. "Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review. We recommend that you consider a more specialized publication venue for this work."
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
5
Rejected
Motivation: This journal sent the manuscript to an external reviewer after one day of submission. However, the reviewer has few comments and these comments are not related to the main topic, methodology, design, or the results. I received the decision with rejection after one month. I wished if the comments came from a reviewer who can provide critical feedback on the topic.
8.1 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
10.9 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
29.0 weeks
50.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Drawn back
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I submitted the article to this journal as part of a pre-exisiting special issue project it was part of - even so, it was desk rejected for not being coherent to the aims&scope - which in itself I understand but does not make much sense to me for an article already part of the special issue that had been proposed by the special issue editors.
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editorial office did every executive affairs in a good way. However, the quality of reviewer comments were really questionable.
Two reviews were sent to me, one of them was accurate and helpful. However, the other one was very short and vague. He/she advised for the rejection, while it was clear that he/she did not even read all parts of the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
5.7 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
5.6 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Received great comments. The overall period, from submission to publication, is longer then what I expected. However, its worth it
3.7 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Provided good comments to improve my manuscript. The process was efficient.
22.3 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: This is an excellent journal for publishing an occupational health research papers. Their dealing with the author and transparency is excellent.
13.1 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and positive
7.7 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough review process with meaningful input. Length of time required for initial and secondary review seems more than reasonable.
5.6 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
3.6 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quick, the reviewers knowledgeable and insightful. The tone of the reviews was polite and friendly, the editors were helpful and decisive , as well as swift in their decisions. Absolutel no negative aspect to be mentioned.
0.6 weeks
0.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
Motivation: The processing was very fast and well handled.
8.6 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
17.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
4
Accepted
5.7 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were of intermediate quality. Negative points were that the first reviewer mainly wanted us to cite some literature. The second reviewer said that the theoretical focus does not fit to the journal and we should add more empirical results. I think the editor should decide this question at the beginning before sending the manuscript out for review. Therefore, this should not be a major concern for the reviewer.

However, both reviewers also had some valid points.
4.3 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
43.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2.0 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor took care of every aspect at highest possible quality and in a very timely manner. Reviewers were chosen very carefully and the feedback was excellent.
Immediately accepted after 1.1 weeks
Accepted (im.)
13.1 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very accommodating editor (having allowed additional delays due to the pandemic).
Very interesting comments from reviewers and editor. Taking them into account greatly improved the article.
Completely reasonable deadlines.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: a reject and resubmit because the editors saw the potential but wanted a broader (=longer) engagement with the literature
14.4 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I did not understand the criticism.
15.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rapid rejection, that was appreciated.
8.4 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and helped me to improve the paper substantially.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
21.9 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
13.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Editor thought that the paper was too specific for the journal (after the reviews were in).
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.4 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Report of the first reviewer was not very constructive, but the second reviewer and the editor were.