Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Communications in Mathematical Physics
21.7 weeks
47.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Scientific Reports
11.9 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
BBA General Subjects
9.0 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
1
Accepted
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
9.7 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Marketing
28.1 weeks
28.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews quality is good but the review process takes too long.
Nature Chemistry
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Physics Letters A
n/a
n/a
63 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor mentioned that he tried 8 reviewers but none of them agrees to review the manuscript. He think that the manuscript does not project a sense of importance that could warrant publication in PLA.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
3.4 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature Microbiology
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials
16.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
BMC Neuroscience
12.0 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript was submitted for a month before editor came back with questions. We addressed them and resubmitted, then it went out for review, the review process took about a month and a half. The reviewer comments were easy to address and the manuscript was resubmitted quickly. The manuscript was then accepted pending minor revisions requested by the editor, which were addressed the same day. The manuscript was officially accepted days later. The whole process took less than 4 months.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Honestly, we believed that our contribution would be a good fit for Nature Communications. During our work, we have found several papers that had "similar" contribution and impact. Anyway, we accepted the suggestion of transferring the manuscript for Scientific Reports, and afterward, they ended up accepting it.
Physics Letters A
6.0 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Two reviewers suggested some minor changes before acceptance. Third reviewer feels that manuscript shows new results but suitable for more specific optical journal. After revision manuscript was accepted.
Citizenship Studies
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: Unclear if the manuscript was sent out for external review - we received an email with a paragraph each of feedback from two 'Associate Editors', informing us that our paper failed to adequately engage with the journal's core debates. While we appreciated the speed in which the manuscript was processed, this is disappointingly slow if (as we suspect) the manuscript wasn't actually sent out for review.
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 84.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: I decided to withdraw my manuscript after the editor couldn't find reviewers for more than two and a half months
Journal of Experimental Medicine
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Parenting
27.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Functional and Integrative Genomics
n/a
n/a
102 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After more than 90 days, we received the response of the journal regarding our article. However, it was rather strange. On the website, I saw that it was "Under Review"; however, when we finally got feedback from the journal, which declared that our article was rejected, no comments from reviewers were provided.
The Editor said, and I quote: "Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it." There were no reviewer's comments in the e-mail or the submission system. I tried to contact the Editor, asking for the comments, but I never got a response. In my understanding, the article was never reviewed by anyone because I never saw the comments, and they should have been provided.
I must highlight that I only received this declaration after more than 90 days, and only after I contacted the journal, asking about long it was taking for an initial assessment.
It was not the first time I've waited more than 80 days for Functional & Integrative Genomics to give me an initial assessment on an article.
Optics Communications
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer feels that the calculation was useful but not exactly matches the experimental results. He also feels that the physical interpretation of experimental and calculated results should be described in more detail.
Environment and Planning B
39.0 weeks
39.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: Three months after I submitted the article, I emailed the editor. They said they had trouble finding the reviewers. As a result of 9 months, I received two peer reviews and the result is reject. I'm very upset because one of the review was 3 sentences. The other reviewer's opinion is whether the article was suitable for the journal. I think this should be the editor's decision. This reviewer offered me another journal. I don't think the referee process is going well.
Biological Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Forces
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were reasonably extensive. The editors explained their decision. Although as authors we could argue with the reviewers, the journal's process felt fair.
Behavioral Ecology
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Microbiology
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
5.1 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast handling overall, despite two thorough rounds of reviews (which helped to improve the manuscript considerably). Always a pleasant communication with different members of the editorial office.
Biological Psychiatry
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Analytical Chemistry
17.4 weeks
17.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Science Immunology
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Depression and Anxiety
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
JAMA Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
8.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Smooth process but the third round of review felt a little pointless as not much changed. Would happily submit an article to this journal again. Time from acceptance to publication was very quick, 10 days, which is always fantastic!!
Science Advances
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
4.3 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: For an open access journal, the speed and quality of review was satisfactory to me.
I was driven to submit to Sci Rep because the work (lab-on-a-chip) we wanted to publish was deemed not suited for Lab on a Chip journal! We were recommended RSC Advances.

We chose Sci Rep over other alternatives because the review is not centered around impact but validity of results. We are confident of the positive impact of our work and did not need further validation.
Nature Structural and Molecular Biology
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick rejection
EMBO Molecular Medicine
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
EMBO Reports
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Current Opinion in Physiology
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
Motivation: Rapid turnaround. Helpful editorial staff. No review comments.
Biological Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Medical Internet Research
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very straightforward review process. The reviewer suggestions were detailed and appropriate.