Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
4.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Applied Geography
n/a
n/a
79 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This journal is in melt-down. I was written to a few weeks ago to say there had been a huge backlog in dealing with submissions and an 'internal problem'. Now I get a desk reject with no reason provided. Unless you have 8 weeks to waste, I highly recommend that you do NOT submit anything to this journal. Appalling behaviour really.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Crystal Research and Technology
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I have submitted it on 18th June and got the first review on 28th August. The revised manuscript submitted on 29th August and got an acceptance on 9th September. It is a very good Journal for material science researchers.
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Genome Biology
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Waste Management
9.6 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor disappointingly did not understand the work, and insulted us by a comment that he believes the paper is generated by a computer! This work was reviewed internally at our institution by four professors who were all co-authors; all English native speakers! We submitted a complain to the editor in chief and we did not receive ANY sort of response! Very bad experience with this journal, its editor, and editor in chief. Stay away from this journal.
Applied Physics Letters
1.7 weeks
1.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Incredibly fast process all around. I've never had a paper go through the process so quickly at every stage. That being said, the review reports weren't super detailed compared to other journals, but we went through an entire round of reviews and had the paper accepted in the same amount of time it sometimes takes for other journals to even send out to reviewers the first time.
Philosophical Studies
18.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Clinical Research in Cardiology
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
BMJ Open
11.6 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Scientific Reports
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer 1 seems to not have been aware of the journal's article structure (introduction, results, discussion, methods), and commented to have missed a section that was included with the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 had many good suggestions that will strengthen the manuscript when submitted elsewere.

the manuscript was transferred from NHB, but the transfer was not as smooth as promised, with many changes necessary to fit the NHB manuscript to the SR format.
Environmental Earth Sciences
13.0 weeks
56.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: After 20 months my papers were accepted. 4 times revised manuscripts, the first is reject and resubmit, the second is major revised, third is minor revised, and the fourth was accepted. Thanks two reviewers and the editor of the journal are polite with authors.
Science
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Science Research
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The comments of the reviewers were rather general and mostly asked for a more comprehensive discussion of the contribution; however, the editors rejected
Nature Communications
3.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: NA
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very long for an editorial rejection.
Energy and Buildings
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very strict review by the editor who did not see anything interesting in our article.
Austral Ecology
7.1 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Substance Use and Misuse
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I received a positive feedback from the editors and I took them into account.
Nature Photonics
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Human Resource Management
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Limited theoretical contributions
Applied Materials Today
2.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids
4.0 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: One of the review reports was written in poor English and had a lot of linguistic mistakes. The reviewer only commented on the merits of the paper, which did not fit in his opinion with the journal. I only blame the editorial board for sending it out to reviewers despite them arguing the paper was out of the journal's scope.
Research Policy
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were well informed and gave good and fair feedback which was repairable. Considering the status of the journal they missed sufficient novelty in the results.
Emergency Medicine Journal
7.9 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: 1st review were overall good comments
Scientific Reports
45.1 weeks
49.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: It took >10 months for the first reviewer reports to arrive, which is the longest duration from submission to first reviewer feedback out of >10 journals we recently published in.​ If the manuscript had been of above average length it might be understandable that the review process takes longer, but it was in fact quite short (5400 words).​
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
2.1 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Thanks the contribution by reviewers and editoral team. I had a positive and pleasure contact and submission.
Journal of Psychiatric Research
10.3 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nano Letters
2.9 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Population, Space and Place
18.9 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
0
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews we received were very helpful and to the point. We were therefore highly disappointed when the only reply we received upon submitting a revised version - which we thought addressed the concerns raised in the reviews - was an outright rejection without any motivation whatsoever. Even upon inquiring we received no explanation for the rejection from the editor.
Biology Letters
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
ACS Catalysis
5.0 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
5
Accepted
Optics and Laser Technology
16.9 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
0
Rejected
Motivation: Long time for review
Organization Studies
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: In advance, I presented the paper at the EGOS conference, incorporating virtually all feedback on the short paper, the long paper and the presentation (feedback was great and constructive). Then I submitted the article to OS, waited three weeks and received three totally destructive sentences that the paper was poor quality and immature (after someone apparently looked at the paper for probably five minutes), leaving me without any constructive comments or arguments on how to improve the paper.