Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Nature Communications
7.4 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Clinical Interventions in Aging
14.1 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: The publisher provides a clear timeline to help authors keep track of the manuscript's status. The submission interface is easy to use.
Journal of Information Science
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Anatomical Record
6.1 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very responsive editors and excellent review process.
Current Biology
5.9 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Our handling editor was very responsive and extremely comprehensive. I think all the review reports were also of good quality and I am very happy with the feedbacks we received on this manuscript which truly strengthen our findings.
Nature Structural and Molecular Biology
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Work, Employment and Society
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
American Sociological Review
15.0 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Turnaround time for reviews was much faster than expected, especially given the extremely high quality of the reviews from scholars who were clearly extremely knowledgeable in the field.
The editors were also extremely helpful and provided much guidance, they even edited the paper themselves.
Molecular Ecology
17.3 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Molecular Ecology
8.1 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Freshwater Biology
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took a long time; the reason for the reviewer's proposed rejection was not fully understood.
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Accepted
Biological Psychiatry
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Editor and reviewers were quick in their decision. The manuscript was rejected because the editor judged its topic to be too preliminar to perform a SR, but reviewers' comments were overall positive. Despite the rejection, a good experience.
Journal of Medical Internet Research
8.0 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers provide thorough and comprehensive insights into the study topic and help strengthen the study for publication.
International Journal of Epidemiology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Acta Biomedica
6.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
International Journal of Cultural Policy
15.0 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy
4.9 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: Handling and communication concerning the manuscript were quick. However, some of the reviewer reports were unusual. The first reviewer had valuable inputs, however, at times requested additional work that would have gone far beyond the scope of the presented manuscript or which was simply not applicable/feasible for the investigated specimen. However, the second reviewer did not really seem to care about the work, as their suggestions were more of a general nature (extend discussion without specific inputs, add highlights, add a graphical abstract).
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
7.1 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: A quite long review period with questionable reviews.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
9.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and good review, good production time.
Journal of Motor Behavior
6.5 weeks
17.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were most reasonable (and somewhat forgiving) with thankfully much attention devoted toward the theoretical aspects and strengths. The time for review was reasonable (<2 months), although there was somewhat of a delay between completion of reviews and editorial decision (approx. 2-3 weeks).
European Sociological Review
10.3 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very swift and professional handling, good communication, critical reviews with focus on the substance.
Angewandte Chemie
2.1 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Handling at every stage was quick. We got 2 reviewers. One of them clearly understood the scope of the paper and offered to provide additional experiments that added more detail and some novelty to the manuscript. This was done. The other reviewer declared that he is specialised in another field (which is a connected field) and criticised certain details of our method. This reviewer requested to provide additional check-ups relevant for their field, which were in our opinion not needed with our subject. However, we provided the requested check-ups (none of them influenced conclusions) and the manuscript was finally accepted after another textual change.
Physical Review Letters
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Biomolecules and Biomedicine
3.9 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Nature Nanotechnology
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: takes 4 months for external review and got rejected, too long
Advanced Materials
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editor suggested to transfer to Adv. Func. Mater. based on the reviewers' reports. It was fine besides the reviewing time that was more than 10 weeks.
Advanced Functional Materials
4.4 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: We were lucky to have a fair editor. Although one of the reviewers came up with an unconstructive criticism during the second review round, the editor decided to accept the paper after our response.
ACS Photonics
6.1 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, a fair review process. Just rather long processing time.
Journal of Experimental Medicine
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy
7.4 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' comments are professional and constructive. The overall editorial process is timely.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems
18.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The comments are overall constructive and professional.
European Political Science Review
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Autism
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
1
Rejected
Autism
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Scientific Data
11.4 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Professional and friendly communication with editor, reviewers were high quality and looked at the manuscript throughout, good suggestions.
Microbiome
n/a
n/a
29 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Elife
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Medical Internet Research
13.7 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The Peer review was good. But the manuscript was with the editor since the editor could not find peer-reviewers. After the recommendation, the paper was sent out for review. After corrections the paper was finally accepted. The proofs parts was like another review which took quite some effort and time.