Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Growth and Change
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fairly quick review rounds with helpful and constructive reviews which contributed to improving my article. I was overall very satisfied with the process.
Nature
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Microbes and Environments
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Review was timely and review comments were constructive. Editorial process seemed fair and impartial. I would have preferred an opportunity to address the review comments, rather than an outright rejection, as the review comments seemed like they could have been addressed.
Water
5.1 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
Ceramics International
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of International Marketing
7.1 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer team is very profesional, and always help with solutions to the issues. However is a hard process, an currently all paper may pass triple round review.
Scientific Reports
7.3 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
Motivation: None of the reviews raised any serious challenges to the research and the writeup of the ms. At the end of the day, after we had, in our judgment, thoroughly addressed all the reviewer's points, none of our rebuttals were addressed but the editor had a colleague on the editorial board review it and this editor, who was obviously ignorant of the domain, recommended rejection. What was particularly galling was that the action editor provided no opportunity to address this last review. All in all, it was the worst and most caprisious editorial experience I've had or witnessed (I myself have been an editor) in my professional life.
Psychogeriatrics
19.6 weeks
29.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Since all review comments were very suggestive, our manuscript was significantly improved through the review process. Very nice comments. However, the duration of the first review round was long.
Nature
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Statistical Science
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 492.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: It is not polite to give any answer regarding the review of the paper within almost 18 months.
Human Reproduction
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 71.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: It is easy for your manuscript to be lost in this journal. They have updated their submission system which do not allow you to track your manuscript. Besides, it is common that you will struggle in selecting appropriate handling editor, and on many occasions will not accept your manuscript and will be going in circles.
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
5.9 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Clinical Oral Investigations
7.9 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Physiology and Behavior
12.3 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Scientific Reports
n/a
n/a
251 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Oecologia
6.4 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Sociology of Health and Illness
18.9 weeks
25.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, this was a good experience. It was a little slower response time than I would have liked but otherwise the reviewers were fair and process went well.
European Journal of Oral Sciences
2.3 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Nature Medicine
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
Physiology and Behavior
5.9 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
PLoS Biology
7.4 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: Unfortunately, one of the reviewers was clearly biased, tried to delay the manuscript as much as possible, and reduce its impact. Additionally, the duration from acceptance to publication was very long (45 days) due to ongoing requests by the editorial staff (to replace individual words and perform other minor changes).
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
0.6 weeks
0.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: I received three comments and the editor’s rejection decision. The comments of the two reviews are very positive. One is direct publishing. The third comment suggested, "do not publish". The third reviewer's report was wrong and ignorant, but the editor accepted his/her suggestion despite my appeal.
Journals of Gerontology, Series B
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was submitted during the COVID pandemic but was still processed and returned relatively quickly. Although the editor and reviewers appeared to see promise in the manuscript, it was rejected with the editor suggesting that we rewrite the paper and resubmit it to the journal as a new submission. It was not clear why we were not granted an option to revise and resubmit.
Clinical Transplantation
4.7 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Journal of Marriage and Family
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript sat with the editor for two months before being sent out for review. Once it was sent out to reviewers the decision was made within a month. Admittedly this was during the COVID pandemic but it was fair longer than the other manuscripts I had sent to other journals at that same time period.
Elife
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewing Editors comments were mediocre and lack of understanding.
Reviewer seems not an experts.
good point: quick
BMJ Open
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No comments
Personality and Individual Differences
4.1 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Evolutionary Psychology
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Access
2.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is clear and helpful.
The reviewer's comments help us to improve the manuscript.
And finally, it was accepted to publish.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects
4.1 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was prompt and courteous. The reviewer's comments were accurate and helpful in improving the paper.
European Polymer Journal
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Progress in Organic Coatings
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor suggested an article transfer offer to another Elsevier journal.
New Technology, Work and Employment
10.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The journal managed the submission really well and the reviews came in a timely fashion. Even thought the paper was rejected, the reviewers gave clear reasons why and how the paper could be improved.
Transport Policy
4.3 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Second Language Research
7.6 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Out of three reviewers, one reviewer provided very lengthy and helpful feedback. But it was detailed enough to make up for the other two reviews that did not provide much feedback. Also, the editor was swift in handling the ms and was kind and encouraging.
Materials Science and Engineering, A: Structural Materials: Properties, Microstructure and Processing
10.9 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: I have not received suitable reviews in the first round. The second round review was better but there were not many changes for my manuscript in the second round.
Chemistry Letters
Immediately accepted after 4.1 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Nature Methods
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was thoroughly read and evaluated by the handling editor as well as discussed with additional editors. The work was considered important, however, not of high enough interest for a broader audience. Direct transfer to Nature Communications was proposed.