Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Computers in Biology and Medicine
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 156.0 days
Drawn back
Science Translational Medicine
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: It's definitely not a fast journal, first round took more than 2 months and the second round around 3 weeks. The reviewer comments are not really helpful and did not improved the final paper much. Overall, I think this is a slightly higher than average journal with long handling time and not-so-efficient editors.
Applied Optics
4.3 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient editor and reviewers! The tracking system is excellent and everything is super fast and crystal clear. The reviewer comments improved the final paper significantly.
Energy Research and Social Science
8.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The process was lengthy and some reviews appeared contradictory and unreasonable.
Nevertheless the editors were good, approachable and easy to communicate with.
I feel that the process could have been shorter if better reviewers were in place.
European Security
7.1 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good editorial guidance
Genome Biology
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Equine Veterinary Education
16.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Chinese Management Studies
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Management Information Systems
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The only line written was "We have received your paper. However, it is not suitable for JMIS and should be submitted elsewhere.".

From my point of view, an EIC should justify his editorial decision, offer constructive feedback and criticism, and be open to diversified background of authors. I do not think the EIC of JMIS have illustrated any of this.
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Rejected
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Colloid and Polymer Science
4.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Australasian Journal on Ageing
14.9 weeks
24.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
8.6 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Power Sources
5.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review was very fast and the comments were reasonable.
RSC Advances
4.0 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Design Studies
n/a
n/a
40 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was rejected because it did not reference any previous work in the journal. Of course, I did search for such papers, but there were none. If the editorial board keeps rejecting future papers based on this criterion, the paper’s theme will never show up in Design Studies. In addition, such invisibility will dry out further research interest, and this will be detrimental to the entire research community.
Mobile DNA
4.6 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent review and editorial process overall. Constructive, quick and fair. Some small technical difficulties because of submitting a latex document that could have been prevented with better instructions, but eventually handled well by the office.
Genome Biology and Evolution
8.3 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were fair and outcome was positive, but associatie editorial guidance was weak and prolonged the process unnecessarily.
Nature Plants
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Applied Surface Science
4.9 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: In overall the review process was ok, but I would expect opinion of more than one reviewer.
Annals of Internal Medicine
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Methods
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Corrosion Science
5.9 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: The Editor seemed to have taken a very cautious stance against this manuscript. The Manuscript was sent initially to two reviewers, and the first round was relatively quick. However, the second reviewer came up with a long list of comments (about 8 "major" and 60 "minor"). We have then revised the manuscript substantially and have done a lot of work on it and submitted it back to the journal, hoping that all issues had been addressed. The second round of reviews took much longer, and the same Reviewer, again, submitted an even longer list of comments (about 100 - 110 points), and it was a real nightmare. All of those comments were written in an exceptionally poor English, and it took a lot of time just to understand what he was writing. The response to the Reviewer comments has taken 16 pages. Most of those comments were useless, and it seemed the Reviewer just didn't want this paper to be published! After having communicated with the Editor, the latter confirmed that the Reviewer needed to be changed, and then the Editor reviewed the re-revised manuscript himself. It took four rounds of review to get this paper published.
PNAS
n/a
n/a
39 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Took a long time for a desk reject - sat with Editorial Board for over 5 weeks and then the minute it went to Editor was rejected. Generic letter, not helpful.
Applied Optics
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Bad paper review
Scientific Reports
5.6 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: One of the two reviewers formulated useful, minor suggestions, while the comments of the other reviewer were confusing and sometimes completely incomprehensible and in very poor English.
Journal of Membrane Biology
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: Comments from the 1st reviewer were mostly poor and erroneous incorrect, but the comments from the 2nd reviewer were fair and helped us to improve our work.
Acta Materialia
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Talanta
6.0 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
n/a
n/a
60 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Sixty days for an abstract-based rejection
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
2
Rejected
Scientific Reports
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Science Advances
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Relatively painless process. Editor thought the paper too descriptive and correlative and more suited for a cancer-oriented journal.
Australasian Journal on Ageing
5.1 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
3
Rejected
Motivation: We were dissatisfied with only one review, with which we personally not fully agree.
Personality and Individual Differences
12.7 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Molecular Biology and Evolution
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Decision to desk reject was poorly justified and not signed by anyone, cloaking process in anonymity without any accountability