Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Environmental Microbiology
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Drawn back
Motivation: Quality of reviews was averaged as one external reviewer was excellent, however, the second reviewer was very bad - their review contained errors, false information, no references to back up their comments and asked for additional information/data that was completely irrelevant to our study. The flaws in the second review were raised with the editor who refused to seek a third reviewer or investigate further. Extremely disappointed with the second reviewer and the editors handling of our manuscript. We decided to publish in another journal.
Electoral Studies
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers pointed out important limitations that we did not emphasize as much as they would have liked. Since we cannot address them with the data used (as discussed in the paper), it's only fair for the editor to reject the paper. The whole process was a bit slow, though...
Frontiers in Marine Science
5.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Annales de l'Institut Fourier
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, our decision is based on the paper’s appeal to Nature’s broad audience, rather than a judgment of its technical robustness. "
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
2.9 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Sociology of Health and Illness
10.4 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We waited nearly 3.5 weeks for a decision on our manuscript - which is the longest I've ever experienced. It's a shame as AEE is a fantastic journal but I'd never submit there again. Would particularly advise ECR to steer clear and instead go for a journal which has shorter, and more justifiable, waiting times.
Journal of the American Chemical Society
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Typically, desk rejections in JACS happened to us quickly. In this case, it was a very unpleasant surprise to get a desk rection after nearly a month long wait without any feedback whatsoever.
Children and Society
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 30.4 days
Drawn back
Physical Review Materials
4.3 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
ACS Nano
4.1 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Science Advances
7.3 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Chemical Physics
4.7 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Physical Review Letters
8.6 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters
2.1 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Research Policy
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Ecology Letters
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Associate editor considered the topic interesting enough but recommended immediate rejection based on what they thought were (quite secondary) issues in the analyses. This is the type of feedback I expect to receive from reviewers and be given the chance to respond — not the type of feedback that should justify desk rejection, in my view.
Journal of Business Venturing
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
9.0 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough reviews that helped us clarify the message. Smooth process as usual with JEMS.
Work, Employment and Society
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Marketing
27.4 weeks
47.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Drawn back
Scientia Iranica
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: very long review process!
Journal of Intellectual Capital
8.7 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' report was excellent. They identified the shortcoming very thoroughly.
International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We got an immediate desk-reject. The editor has a checklist of reasons that would cause immediate rejection. The applicable one in our case was that the journal does not publish studies that use convenience sampling (which we use in our paper).

There was no scientific argument for rejecting the paper on that ground (our study did not have a specific segment and we demonstrated equality in key composition in the experimental treatments). It was either a pure 'matter of principle' or the editor just didn't like the paper and used this as an excuse.

At any rate, at least they didn't sit on the paper for long and we could quickly resubmit somewhere else.
npj Climate and Atmospheric Science
4.3 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Geophysical Research Letters
5.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Elife
8.7 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Chemical Science
6.9 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of the American Chemical Society
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers had decided that the work was not sufficiently novel despite that it identified key issues in the field which had been previously ignored. Perhaps the journal was not a good choice for increasing access to our field.
IEEE Access
13.7 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: A bit of delay but good reviews overall
Applied Clinical Informatics
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very superficial rejection after only one day
DISEGNARECON
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
American Journal of Epidemiology
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: We received only one superficial review after 2 months of wait, with outright rejection as decision...
Micromachines
1.1 weeks
1.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: High time pressure on both reviewers and authors - nice for rapid publication, but can also have drawbacks. Downgraded for poor copyediting.
Lab on a Chip
3.9 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Quick turnaround, all-around positive.
Demography
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)