Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Economic Studies
Immediately accepted after 1.1 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Ecology and Evolution
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.
American Sociological Review
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
Biomass and Bioenergy
14.4 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Ecology Letters
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I did not understand the criticism.
Structural Safety
15.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Journal of Internal Medicine
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rapid rejection, that was appreciated.
European Planning Studies
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.
Chemistry: A European Journal
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems
21.9 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Political Research Quarterly
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).
Organic Letters
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Angewandte Chemie
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Chemical Science
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Forest Ecology and Management
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.
Industrial Robot
4.3 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: It was impressive to see review from 5 reviewers in one month time for a >20 pages review article.
Journal of Health Economics
18.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: The referee reports were very detailed and professional. Both argumented their case clearly and based on solid arguments.
Police Practice and Research
21.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was way too long. The outcome was fine, but the process took forever.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
6.6 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Small
n/a
n/a
39 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Innovation Management
5.6 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Extremely fast, positive and motivating comments that helped to improve the article.
Waste Management and Research
5.9 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and constructive review process.
IEEE Access
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Drawn back
Motivation: 1/3 accept: short but okay comments and suggestions, 2/3 reject with resubmit: one-liners saying that the paper needs a lot of work without specifying any concrete changes, missing references or problems that need to be addressed
PLoS ONE
23.6 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: They have spent much time to make the first decision
American Journal of Biomedical Science and Research
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
Motivation: Processing was fast and well managed.
Animal Behaviour
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 118.0 days
Drawn back
American Journal of Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology
10.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Rejected
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: JASA-EL (before being spun off from JASA, I don't know about the policy now) does not permit major revisions. The reviewers noted several items that may or may not be important, but overall they did not appreciate the concept described in the manuscript.
Social Psychology Quarterly
4.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Really fast process. Editors were really engaged and reviews were of a good quality. I recommend to submit here and I would like to do it again.
Diabetes Care
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
British Medical Journal
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of the American Medical Association
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Land
7.8 weeks
9.8 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Solid handling of manuscript. Professional and clear.
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: One of the two reviewers surprisingly said that our paper was unsuitable for the journal (and he was wrong to me), and the editor surprisingly decided to agree with him/her, so he recommended our article for rejection.
The other reviewer said that the paper was very good and could have been published with after few changes.
BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care
7.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Constitutional Political Economy
7.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis
15.6 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very constructive, detailled comments and suggestions, which really improved the quality and argument of the article.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology
19.9 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Entrepreneurship Research Journal
30.0 weeks
37.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The first review process took quite a lot of time, which was a bit discouraging since we did not know whether our manuscript was being handled. Though, after the first round of review, the processing time has become reasonable. The quality of reviews was generally good and helpful.
Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
Immediately accepted after 3.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)