Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The review happened very quickly to the credit of the journal. Only one of the two reviewers seemed competent to review the manuscript and provided helpful comments, and the other extremely out of date with the field and techniques. There were no comments from the editor, but simply a copy/paste of the comments from the reviewers, which is sloppy and lazy for a journal supposed of this caliber. For a journal that charges a submission fee that is unacceptable. The manuscript was rejected despite having easily addressable comments. I would not consider submitting to this journal in the future.
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The 'initial assesment' took 50 days!

After a long period into submission with no status change, we were curious to ask the journal about our paper. The editor of the journal did not reply to our update request. Days later we again asked, this time the staff. They wrote us that "... editor is currently still working to secure peer reviewers ...".

Then another week after that Email from the staff we received a decision letter that "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" which is actually against the intermediate Email we got!

Beside the lack of information and communication which were confusing, the 50 days of Editor handling is really too long for cutting-edge science. A good work can be easily scoped in such long period.
5.1 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Although the comments were very precise, we had the impression that the referees did their best to improve the paper which was highly appreciated. The editorial care for the text after acceptance was also of a high level, something that you do not come across that often anymore.
3.1 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was very efficient. The review suggestions were committed to improving the level of manuscript. Even if the manuscript had not been accepted, the process would have been valid.
13.1 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The handling of the manuscript was done very swiftly by the editor, we encountered however a reviewer who had very particular and advanced ideas on how to estimate models, whereas our paper was in line with the econometric methodology used by everyone else in the field and it took quite some persuasion and time to convince this reviewer.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
58 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The "immediate reject" decision came after 2 month and the reason given was rejection was wrong (did not reflect the content of the paper). An appeal was sent because of the wrong justification given and the undue delay of the first decision. After 10 days neither has the receipt of the appeal been confirmed, nor did I get an answer.
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The rejection was based on a single review by a reviewer who had never published on the topic of the paper and consequently ignored the main part of the paper. The editor claimed to have read the paper but did not show any sign of knowing what was in the paper. The editor should have awaited further reviews from more knowledgeable reviewers, of whom I suggested six, before reaching a decision.
7.1 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.3 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
7.4 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: rejected due to large number of manuscipts received. however as the decision came out without delay, I would appreciate the editorial efforts.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.0 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewer were constructive. Editor suggested to add recent papers from the journal.
3.7 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
1.4 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.1 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: We submitted our manuscript to eLife via bioRxiv and was sent out to review after 6 days. The reviews were in after 3 weeks and they gave us an unlimited deadline to revise the manuscript due to COVID-19. Once our revised manuscript was submitted, the manuscript is passed onto to at least the reviewing editor rather than all the reviewers (I think) and the paper was accepted after a few days. Since we selected the "publish on accept" option, our paper was online later that day. We will definitely consider eLife again.
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Rejected
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: gave the option for transfer the paper to another
17.0 weeks
29.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Positive, constructive reviews. However, after minor revisions you would expect to get the final approval a bit quicker.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.3 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was handled professionally and the process was smooth. I appreciated the feedback from the reviewers; I sensed that they were highly competent reviewers. One of the reviewers gave very comprehensive feedback and great ideas for a follow-up paper. I would consider submitting a paper to this journal again.
n/a
n/a
29 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
3.1 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial efforts from this journal is excellently awsome. whatever the decisions, we know it in the first day itself.
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: Although the outcome that I received was a 'rejection', this journal has smooth submission and handling processes, and the quality of the reviewing was excellent.
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
0
Rejected
Motivation: Two different reviewers made appropiate comments of our manuscript. Their positive comments were easy to answer and it would have been easy to improve the manuscript following their comments.
But the decision of the editor was a rejection without any reasonable reason.
9.6 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
12.7 weeks
49.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Over three cycles of review, with two reviews each time, there were two reviewers who liked the paper and were satisfied with the manuscript, and one who would not be satisfied (who was not a reviewer until round 2). The authors were disappointed that this paper went from a minor revision (at review #1) to a rejection (at review #3), but feel the editor may have been in a bind due to that reviewer. With an average of 4 months per review, this process delayed the publication of this paper by a year and a half. Trying not to let the outcome skew our impressions of the review process, we do wish (1) a new reviewer hadn't been brought in during round 2, (2) the new reviewer's opinions hadn't been weighted above the other two, (3) the process hadn't taken so long, (4) we hadn't been asked to complete a revision after review #2, if the reviewer was never going to be satisified with our methods.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The desk rejection took over 1 week. In my experience this is necessarily long. Their reasoning was fine, but I had assumed it had gone to reviewers when I hadn't heard anything form them in a week.
20.9 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The review duration was unnecessarily long.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 191.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: I think six months is time enough to receive a first decision from the journal, even more considering that the paper was under review since the end of January.
8.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The speed of the review process was convincible and we received good comments from two reviewers that improved parts of our discussion. From the comments we received, we found that the reviewers had good knowledge on the matter discussed in the paper.