Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Behavioral Ecology
7.0 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The entire review process was fast and smooth. The comments, though relatively minor, were fair and constructive. It did take the handling editor longer than expected to accept the paper given it was only minor revision, but no real complaint there, either.
Mathematische Annalen
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
Experimental Eye Research
9.4 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: very professional journal
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Gerontology
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing
7.1 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Science Research
15.4 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Our article had already been reviewed previously by another journal (International Journal of Comparative Sociology), so the new feedback received from Social Science Research was quite encouraging. Overall, the tone and ideas of the reviewers were constructive. The editor acted with considerable diligence and also provided some comments on the article. The article was subsequently published online fairly quickly
Advanced Materials
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Advanced Science
8.1 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Requests by the journal were communicated actively and timely. Overall, the experience was good and the initial requests and comments made by the reviewers certainly improved the quality and accessibility of the paper. However, unfortunately, it felt as if the majority of the comments received as part of the second round rather intended to delay the publication by trying to cast doubt on the reliability of the presented approach (something that was already discussed in the first revision) than trying to improve the work.
Journal of Sports Sciences
15.2 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
NeuroImage: Clinical
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Neurology
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Advanced Materials
7.6 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: 2024.MM.DD
02.06 Submitted
02.22 With Editor
02.27 Under Review
03.30 Major revision decision (~4.28)
04.28 Revised Manuscript submitted
04.29 Under Review
05.17 Minor revision decision (~5.24)
05.17 Revised Manuscript submitted
05.20 Accept
05.21 First published
Political Analysis
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: The process was swift and the reviews were helpful in improving the manuscript.
Phonetica
11.1 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The status of the manuscript is always "under review" after the submission (and before a decision). However, the editorial office took good care of the manuscript. The turnaround times were great for a journal focusing on linguistics/phonetics. The quality of the review was high. Although it took much effort to address and respond to all the comments, those comments did help imporve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Cytotherapy
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
12.6 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Environmental Development
16.6 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process was great. I had a link that I could track when my article was sent to reviewers and when reviewers responded. I wasn't left in the dark throughout the process. when there was a time I needed clarification, the team responded promptly to my email. Overall, it was a smooth experiences.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics
10.6 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Pretty smooth, some good reviews, and an editor who clearly read the manuscript and also helped with useful comments.
Glia
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: I rated "3" as apparently the reviews could have taken much longer. They were detailed to the point, for one of them, of being nit-picky. Hopefully they will help us in revising and submitting to a different journal. Given the tenor of the comments, I found a rejection unnecessarily harsh from the editor, but we needn't beg to get it published here.
BMC Public Health
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Ecology Letters
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Frontiers in Public Health
15.7 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
PLoS ONE
19.7 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Managerial Auditing Journal
20.4 weeks
41.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor in chief did a great job by recruiting great reviewers that really want to improve the paper and that know the files, the topic and method. Great experiment to improve my knowledge.
ChemSusChem
3.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
6.1 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Science of the Total Environment
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer comments are great and they can be modifiable, but the editorial decision was reject.
Dental and Medical Problems
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Dental and Medical Problems
6.0 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
BMC Oral Health
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Dental and Medical Problems
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was great but the time between acceptance and publication was too long, about two years.
BDJ Open
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Saudi Dental Journal
14.0 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Frontiers in Psychology
6.9 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and concrete comments from expert reviewers.
BMC Psychology
21.3 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: The review took almost 5 months, but the suggestions and comments were perfect and detailed and helped me greatly improve my manuscript. I give it a score of 4 not 5 just because it took a long time.
Child: Care, Health and Development
8.6 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: It was my second experience with this journal, both papers received excellent comments from reviewers and the process was very smooth. The first manuscript received a decision in 3 months, and my second manuscript was accepted in 4 months.