Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Pest Science
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: 8 months after submission, we received two reviews. One was positive, the other had criticisms that were subjective, minor, or readily addressed. The paper was rejected without the opportunity to revise or address the criticisms. We submitted it to another journal with a similar impact factor. It was reviewed there in 3 weeks. We revised to address minor suggestions from the reviewers. It was published 9 weeks after the initial submission to the second journal.
Microbes and Environments
4.3 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: One of the reviewers comments included both major and minor points and addressing them helped make the manuscript better. The handling time of the paper overall was pretty quick so I am happy with that.
Leisure Studies
6.1 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The duration, review comments and expectations were very realistic.
Demographic Research
20.0 weeks
26.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Scientometrics
6.0 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Revista de Estudos Criminais
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
15.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Elife
8.4 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers reports were very constructive and highly supportive. It took us much effort to address all their (relevant) questions, and overall these novel results signifantly improved the manuscript. The review process was smooth (with regular updates from the editorial office) and constructive.
Business and Information Systems Engineering
n/a
n/a
52 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cell Metabolism
9.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: In fact, the reviewers´ comments could have been addressed in a reasonable manner and time frame, yet the paper was rejected. Hence, it was not clear to us why, if the revisions were reasonable, we were not given the opportunity to respond. However, communication with the Editorial team was fluent and overall good experience.
IEEE Internet of Things
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory
23.1 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Computers and Electrical Engineering
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science Advances
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
4.6 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Sociology
12.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Neuropsychologia
14.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Global Change Biology
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Submission was easy and standard. The waiting time was very long, almost 3 months. After more than two months I got an email apologizing for the delay and that they were waiting for the second review. That review never came and the editors instead of sending it to a new reviewer decided to better reject the manuscript. Terrible editorial job.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics
11.6 weeks
29.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Accepted
Motivation: All in all it took more than a year from submission to publication. The manuscript went through 3 round of reviews, mostly due to one very antagonistic referee that simply should have not been allowed to judge our paper. The reviews became more and more aggressive, to the point that we were accused to doctoring the images (by selecting one very specific timestep in our simulation that would prove our point). Instead of controlling these exchanges, the editor blatantly sided with the referee, supporting the changes he was suggesting and never moderating the conversation (at least not that we could see).

The typesetting of our paper was equally disappointing. The process was outsourced to an external company, in another country, and the first proofread was sent in an email that looked like phishing (not signed on behalf of the journal or the editor or the publisher, for example) and was at first ignored, prompting the journal to contact us to urge us to check the proofread. The typesetting process heavily altered key figures of our paper and changed some of the acronyms that were carefully chosen as a result of the review process. 'Journal standards' were mentioned as the cause of this and although we were consistently asked to return comments within 3 days (impossible given that the authors live in very different time-zones) our queries were answered on timescales of months.
Archives of Disease in Childhood
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
New Testament Studies
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Rejected
New Testament Studies
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
Nature Machine Intelligence
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Desk rejection.
Current Biology
3.6 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Good timing, responsive editors and great reviewing process but the strict figure, table and word count limits can go in the way of accurate scientific reporting and readability.
Elife
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast decision
Nature Cell Biology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Mammalian Evolution
16.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process was faster than I expected and the editor was really responsive.
Structural Control and Health Monitoring
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The Journal reject my work after 4 months, while 1 reviewer suggest it to be published, and the other one only suggest reject with one sentence that the work does not related to the journal. I do not know, whether really it needs 4 month for the reviewr to understand that the paper does not match with the journal?
I'll share the reviewer comments here to see how much the performance of SCHM journal is terible in reviewing the articles:

"Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
No Recommendation is made for this paper.

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In this paper, a new method is proposed to evaluate the lifetime seismic risk of typical buildings equipped with different passive vibration control systems under probable mainshock-aftershocks sequences. 5-, 10-, and 15-story intermediate steel moment-resisting frame building models, which are designed optimally with/without passive vibration control systems (hysteretic damping, linear viscous dampingh, and base isolation systems) are subjected to earthquake scenarios and responses of buildings and their cumulative losses are calculated considering various damage types such as structural, non-structural, and content-related. Finally, risk of different building alternatives are estimated by using the Monte-Carlo simulation method. It is shown that the application of each of the considered vibration control devices leads to reduction in lifetime losses and neglecting aftershocks' effects results in underestimation of the lifetime risk by about 27~57% below the expected value.
This paper is well written and well organized. It evaluates the subject from a wide perspective. The figures look professional. The literature review is adequate.

Reviewer 3
Comments to the author
The submission is focused on Earthquake Engineering, rather than on the control aspects, where nothing innovative is presented.
This is confirmed by the absence of this journal in the reference list."
Journal of Risk Research
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Asian Journal of Research in Infectious Diseases
7.6 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
0
1
Accepted
Motivation: 3 of the 4 reviewers had blank responses. I cannot even rule out that the journal is predatory at this point.
Blood Advances
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Rejected
Chemistry of Materials
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Editorial rejection after 7 weeks and 4 reviewers. 3 reviewers evaluated the paper positively, only one recommended rejection without any constructive comment. After an appeal (and sending the manuscript in its revised form addressing the 3 reviewers' comments), the paper got ultimately rejected after several days by the EIC. Sad story.
Acta Cybernetica
19.7 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Acta Cybernetica
3.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was particularly fast, probably because it was for a special issue related to a workshop.
The Journal of Neuroscience
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: One decent review and one good review. Both reviews had issues with the presentation of the results not being connected specifically enough to physiology.
Journal of Diabetes Investigation
2.0 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Ecological Monographs
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Innovation Management
5.7 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I will appreciate the Chief Editor and Particularly the Associate editor for their positive, quick and responsible behavior. I also appreciate the reviewers for their constructive comments that improved our work significantly.
Psycho-Oncology
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Current Medicinal Chemistry
16.4 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: We waited for a long time for the review. There were 2 reviewers. The first reviewer was very kind and made good contributions. The second reviewer wanted us to add 10 more references which are totally irrelevant, and there was a name repeated in every one of them. We wrote a rebuttal letter disclosing suggested articles irrelevance with our article one by one. Thankfully, our paper was accepted after the first review. Editors and the staff were also very kind and responded to our every requirement very quickly.