Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Geophysical Research
19.0 weeks
33.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
New Phytologist
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Business and Society
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Comments from the editor is that the research topic is interesting but the research objectives of the papers need to be redeveloped. The editor advises to redevelop and resubmit the paper. We are given 6-12 months to resubmit
Journal of Business Research
54.1 weeks
54.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The submission was to a special issue. The guest editor commented that they have received a lot of submissions, and they can only choose the few best papers.
ACS Materials Letters
6.1 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing
0.1 weeks
0.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was sent out to 3 external reviewers, 1 of the reviewers gave very long and detailed comments of around 15 pages. Though that particular reviewer is not familiar with my adopted methodology, but overall the reviewers are doing good jobs and try to provide feedback on how to improve my paper. Though rejected, the EIC recommend to address to the comments and resubmit
Journal of Hypertension
7.1 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
IEEE Access
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Bioorganic Chemistry
0.1 weeks
0.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
BMC Infectious Diseases
25.6 weeks
33.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good peer review and easy handling and communication by the editors. Quick publication after the point of acceptance. Seemed to take a long time before the first round of peer review was received.
Tetrahedron Letters
4.3 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Submitted to the 'Social Epidemiology' section of the journal. Fast response was appreciated as they did not waste much of my time.
Journal of the American Statistical Association
23.9 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
2.4 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
European Journal of Endocrinology
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
12.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took quite long.
Industrial Marketing Management
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The reason given - Out of Scope. Despite 1/3 of the citations are from that journal.
The EIC is not interested and do not care to provide valid reasons.
Radio Science
7.7 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The comments received from the reviewers are very helpful. Overall experience is good.
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
6.1 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Rather fast & useful suggestions by the reviewers, convenient interactive review forum
Energy Research and Social Science
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Public Health
n/a
n/a
61 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Two months for a desk reject without any reason stated I find completely unacceptable for a public health journal.
Journal of Public Health
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
6.4 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Quality of the reviews was really mixed, journal was bizarrely fixated on following their formatting guidelines.
Advanced Materials
3.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The only problem is they do not update you on the status of your manuscript for the moment you submit it, it just stayed at "under consideration", which made us feel that it was still under editorial review. Being a prestigious journal, we thought it needed more time for the editor to make the decision to send it out to reviewers, for all that we know after close to 3 weeks, we received the reviewers' comment, then did we realize it has passed editorial review. Overall, they are very fast for my case, 3 weeks for the first review, was given 10 days to complete the first revision and the second revision came in 14 days time. After that, the editor mentioned that it was just a minor revision and if we addressed it, he will give us a final decision as soon as possible. Almost immediately when after submitting our minor revision, the editor came back within one working day to accept our paper for post-production. Kudos!
Small
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We were offered a transfer option to a suitable journal, but it took over a week for a desk rejection, which is a pretty long time in my experience.
Electronics Letters
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Public Health
n/a
n/a
61 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Two months for a desk reject without any comment on the manuscript I find completely unacceptable.
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
Journal of Business Economics and Management
10.9 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fast review process if you revise the manuscript according to reviewer reports. The only problem is the delay of the manuscript in going for a review. submitted 03 April 2019; accepted 01 August 2019,
Nature Communications
6.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Palaeontology
n/a
n/a
187 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Langmuir
10.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Machine Learning
Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Knowledge Management Research and Practice
33.4 weeks
49.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Patient Education and Counseling
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Economy and Society
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I received a swift and polite email containing a rejection pointing to the large volume of submissions to the journal. The editor also made a suggestion for an alternative jounal that might be a better fit.
Child Abuse and Neglect
9.6 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering
8.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Science
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Unless you are a 'big shot' group leader, don't bother submitting here. We presented novel and multidisciplinary work on a high-impact topic with very in-depth content. The paper was not assigned to the editor of our choice who we selected based on previous experience of handling manuscripts in the field. Instead, the paper was assigned to new editor with very poor scientific background and marginaly relevant expertise so it seemed from the get-go that our paper is going to serve as his training material rather. The paper was returned in a week without anything but a form letter and recommendation to resubmit to Science Advances for which we had stated clearly that we had no interest in. So the whole process seemed pre-set to forward high-quality work to boost the impact of their mediocre daughter journal rather than give us a chance to an objective peer review. Multiple inquiries to the editor about more specific feedback were stonewalled and in 6 exchanged e-mails there was not a single indication that the editor had even read the manuscript. Given that the submission had extensive supporting data on top of their typical format, I doubt that that was done as the actual time of 'under editorial consideration' status was actually extremely brief.