Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
International Small Business Journal
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We got a desk-reject decision after less than three weeks. The editor considered that the paper was not a strong fit to the journal because the topic of our paper was of current interest to the journal's readers. There were additional comments about the poor quality of English as well as an insufficient engagement in the small business literature.
We only partly understand these criticisms as the main paper we use as a reference, both from the methodological perspective and the theoretical arguments was published in this very journal a few years ago. Additionally, we got no comments about the quality of English by the reviewers during a previous unsucessful submission of this manuscript.
Applied Cognitive Psychology
11.7 weeks
32.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Psycho-Oncology
10.7 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research
4.3 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Value in Health
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: It took an unreasonable amount of time (around 3 months) for the manuscript to be sent out for review. Upon receipt of the first decision (reject) - 16 weeks after submission - there was only one review report.
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor suggested transferring the manuscript to the sister's journal (ACS Applied Electronic Materials).
Soil Use and Management
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cell Chemical Biology
4.6 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: While the reviewers were constructive and suggested changes that improved the manuscript, the process was very much delayed by adding on additional reviewers in rounds #2 and #3, even though we had addressed all previous reviewer questions. At some point, an editorial decision should have been made (all reviewers were overall positive about the importance and quality of the manuscript).
Energy and Buildings
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Psychopharmacology
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our paper was not a case report, the reason why it was rejected after 3 weeks! They did not accept the mistake. I asked for an explanation but they never did it.
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
6.9 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very good review reports
Acta Psychologica
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Science Advances
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Medical Internet Research
8.9 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process of open review was new to us, and we were pleasantly surprised about the outcome. We received comments from three different reviewers which where all very helpful to us. The reviews were overall balanced concerning pointing out strengths and weak spots in the manuscript. The comments were concrete and phrased in a manner that was easy to understand and follow when doing revisions.
Sustainable Computing, Informatics and Systems
n/a
n/a
102 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I am very disappointed with the overworked Editors and the lousy Editorial standards at this moneymaking journal. A previous submission here was also immediately rejected but nevertheless published in a very good journal with great referee comments. The insular comment in the decision letter on only one aspect of our multifaceted manuscript clearly showed that the busy Editor had not even properly read the paper a full time. Or else she understood just what she commented on, because you got to have special skills to miss everything else in the title, abstract and results. I am really amused by some of the commentaries on "trending" topics by whom they deem to be "experts" in my field. It clearly shows their lack of understanding of my field.
Building Simulation
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Research in International Business and Finance
7.1 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very constructive and pertinent referee reports. Fast handling. Paper improved significantly during the process.
Nature Chemical Biology
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "we did not find this to be sufficiently mechanistic"
Nature Energy
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very professional and understandable rejection. Nature Energy has an extremely high impact factor, thus also high expectations. The rejection was informed very fast, which allowed me to directly resubmit the paper to another journal.
Materials Science and Engineering, C: Materials for Biological Applications
5.7 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
International Journal of Comparative Sociology
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The process was pretty fast. However, the sent work received an unconventional number of revisions. Specifically, 4 reviewers did the work. Their decisions were: "minor revision", two "major revision" and one "reject". The editor decided to reject the paper without the possibility to dialogue with the reviewers or address any problem of the paper.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Alloys and Compounds
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer chosen by a journal had no idea about a research topic he reviewed. The sentences in the review revealed a total ignorance of reviewer in the matter of research topic.
Canadian Journal of Political Science
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: One of the reviewers gave helpful feedback that improved the paper
PLoS ONE
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer commented that the results are over-interpreted and the conclusions are not supported by data. However, the reviewer didn't offer reason.
Frontiers in Psychology
5.9 weeks
37.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Ecology Letters
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The speed of the manuscript handling was exceptional. Both reviewers had important criticisms of the paper, but neither recommended rejecting the paper. However, R2 said that the results were "unsurprising" and this put up a red flag for the editor, who said Ecology Letters can only accept the most innovative and novel papers, and that "unsurprising" results were insufficient.
Journal of Differential Equations
8.4 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The report I received was very timely, critical, to the point and clear. The comments made by the reviewer improved considerably my paper. Moreover, from the comments, suggestions and criticisms, it was very clear that the reviewer is an expert in the field. I am extremely satisfied with the whole process, in particular with the way the editor Adrian Constantin handled my paper. In a nutshell, it was an excellent experience.
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
International Advances in Economic Research
14.9 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science of the Total Environment
9.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: We had two reviewers for this paper. One was very good but the other seemed to understand little about the analysis and have read almost nothing in the subject area, as was clear from his/her comments. Yet this reviewer was given a lot of weight in the review process by the editor. This paper was part of a special issue where I was co-author on a number of other papers. My experience with these other papers was similar. The choice of reviewers was baffling for the most part. The other papers in this issue went through very quickly (though compromising the review quality in my opinion), while this one was very slow but still lacking in review quality.
Physical Review Letters
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Neuron
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "overall conclusions fall short of providing the kind of robust conceptual advance and new biological insights that would make the paper a strong candidate for this journal"
Political Studies
9.3 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The comments by both reviewers were very helpful and the editors provided us with clear points to address in our revision.
Future Generation Computer Systems
10.7 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: We received three reports from three reviewers. Two of them were knowledgeable commenting on the topic and asked for minor changes that all were addressed in the 1st round review. The 3rd reviewer described him/her self as "informed about the topic but never publish in the topic". The 3rd reviewer was dismissive of everything. His main comment was approved mathematically wrong.

We addressed all of the comments in both the paper and the response letter. Our paper got rejected with a couple of lines only from the 3rd reviewer only stating that we did not address his comments.

We rate down this journal due to the unusual procedure of rejecting a paper based on one unspecialised reviewer and ignoring the other two reviewers' decision.

Note that this journal does not have appeal policy and the decision of the editor is final
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
15.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: I was told there were 4 reviewers. Only one wrote more than a phrase, but he had the thesis backward, so I don’t know how closely he read it. Another wrote only “same as comments to editor” which was not provided to me even on request. Nothing was said about how to change or improve the article.
Physical Therapy
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Energy Policy
8.7 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: The first round of reviews was mixed: one favourable and one against. The one against was poorly written and misunderstood the nature of the paper showing to be a rushed work.
We answered explaining point by point why we did what.
The second round of reviews discounted our answers and the new reviewers sidelined with the first negative reviewer without taking in account our responses to the first negative reviewer. The favourable reviewer had been removed by the reviewing team while the first negative reviewer was retained in the reviewing team. It was a lengthy and unfair process, there was no engagement on part of the reviewers or the editors with our answers to first round negative reviewer's criticism.