Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor wrote that "they accept only papers that are scientifically sound, important to the field, and contain significant new results in physics. We judge that these acceptance criteria are not met by your manuscript". I am sure that he did not see the paper carefully and did not understand the novelty of our work.
Our work was soon accepted in other peer-reviewd journal and was significantly cited after publication. More surprisingly, the work based on our model was recently published in Physical Review A. So I did not understand that why our work was not significant and how similar kind of work was publishable in PRA later?
Science Immunology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Neurocomputing
12.0 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Schizophrenia Research
9.6 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Scientific Reports
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Although it was rejection but reviewers understood the work and provides the limitations and proper reason (after in-depth review) that why the work was not suitable for publication in Scientific Reports.
Pattern Recognition
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Optics Communications
7.1 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I always rate Optics Communications a very good journal. The editor and reviewers are quite professional, always fair and they judge the work on the basis of its quality and provide constructive comments. Our experience with this manuscript was quite good.
Scientific Reports
8.7 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Quite long but constructive review process. Editors and reviewers were understood the work properly and provide important feedbacks about the work. The final decision after three review rounds was accept.
Molecular Systems Biology
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Lab on a Chip
2.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: We assumed we could resubmit after addressing their points, which we did the next year.
This time, the same reviewer admits that we improved our work and that he is 'satisfied' but then suggested another journal, RSC Advances, altogether.
Again, we received high scores for significance and quality.
In the end, we regretted sending our work to this journal or our choice of reviewers.

I think this journal is used to publishing a certain type of work within the area of Lab-on-Chip and is not general enough to accommodate all Lab-on-Chip works, and this part is not clear to us.
Journal of Fish Diseases
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Political Psychology
26.4 weeks
26.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
FEBS Journal
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: No complaints. The entire process up to standard.
Southern Economic Journal
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Language in Society
19.9 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Received one constructive review, from a reviewer who had clearly engaged deeply with the topic of the manuscript and pointed out that with "little work" the paper could be much improved. The second reviewer, however, appeared to dismiss the paper entirely because they disagreed with my methodological approach (ethnographic and interview data), instead insisting that valid data would have been transcripts of recorded natural conversation. Ultimately, the Associate Editor adjudicated and ruled in favour of rejection.
Environmental Science and Policy
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Animal Ecology
7.1 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were of outstanding quality and definitely improved the manuscript. However, editorial decisions were very slow, each decision taking 31 to 42 days to arrive (counting only days in which the manuscript was in the editors' hand, not in reviewers').
Energies
2.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was handled very well. Only one reviewer gave bad comments.
Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy
16.6 weeks
38.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews are good, but the review process took too long. After a third roud of reviews, the reviewer took 16 weeks to give the acceptance.
Journal of Family Issues
24.6 weeks
30.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted