Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
European Journal of Marketing
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was desk rejected as the editor deemed it not a good fit for the journal. No explanation was given as to why this were the case. The paper was obviously fully within the scope of the journal, so I assume the editor didn't like it but couldn't be bothered to give some feedback as to what the problems were. At least they didn't hang on it for too long.
Journal of Consumer Culture
56.7 weeks
73.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: High quality but very long process.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Annals of Applied Biology
19.7 weeks
19.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: After 4,5 months of reviewing, only one reviewer review the manuscript. Then, the Editor rejected the manuscript although this reviewer advised major revision
Transportation Science
56.4 weeks
69.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
2
Accepted
Motivation: While the reports were high quality and helpful to improve the manuscript, the pace of review was painfully slow. The EIC would not repond to queries and we had written that we were considering to withdraw the manuscript due to excessively long time. Then, within a day or so, I obtained the first round of reviews that asked for a major R&R.
Australian Mammalogy
7.6 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Despite outdated website experience (it is 2019!), the overall submission process is smooth. However, it took way too long for a desk rejection.
Journal of Cell Science
13.9 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: Our experience of submission to Journal of Cell Science was extremely poor. It took over 3 months to receive an editorial rejection (including two emails to chase up the manuscript in this time, though responses to this were quick in all fairness).

While rejection is part of the process we were very taken aback by the poor quality of the reviews. 2 reports were submitted, one of which did not constitute any feedback, constructive or otherwise - simply stating that the work was not relevant or suited to publication in Journal of Cell Science. Ultimately the review process was extremely protracted and not even remotely constructive - huge waste of time. Even if reviewers think poorly of the manuscript, we should be given scientific reasons/criticism to work on (even if rejected!). It should not have taken 3 months to receive a rejection like this.
Hydrobiologia
11.1 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was reasonably fast. The comments from reviewers were constructive and useful. The editor was helpful and also provided good advice to improve the manuscript.
Science of the Total Environment
6.0 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: After initial rejection, we were allowed to resubmit after emailing the editor to ask for clarification on the decision and stating that we would be able to address the reviewers concerns. Our request was handled very graciously and after resubmission our manuscript was accepted with minor revisions.
PLoS Biology
8.0 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: First reviews took too long to be communicated to me.
Second round of reviews was not really necessary; final amendments requested by editor would have sufficed. This was an extremely short paper.
World Development
26.4 weeks
32.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
The Lancet Global Health
15.1 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Natural Language Engineering
9.4 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Facilities
8.0 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I am so excited to publish in this journal. The feedback was a bit uptight, but it definitely improved my manuscript.
PNAS
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journals of Gerontology, Series B
5.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: Discrepancies among reviewers were quite obvious and the word-limits did not allow comprehensive articulation.
Diversity and Distributions
35.6 weeks
41.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Very slow to receive initial reviews, timed poorly - got caught up in the period where all the editors left in protest of the new OA policy.
Multisensory Research
2.9 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Journals of Gerontology, Series B
5.7 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: First time I had a paper accepted by a Q1 journal. took a while but highly recommend
Food Quality and Preference
2.1 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast handling of the paper - likely also because the paper in question was a "short communication" (<4000 words), and overall excellent communication with and from the editor.

The reviews were high quality and constructive, and definitely improved the paper,

Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques
10.8 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
4
Accepted
BMC International Health and Human Rights
21.3 weeks
56.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: I would rather get demoted or fired than submit to this journal again. This was the worst experience of my life. Extremely long handling, an unresponsive editor, biased reviews, quick and misinformed editorial choices. I wonder why someone would submit to this journal at all. Avoid at all costs!
Migration Studies
29.4 weeks
49.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Quick review processing with 3 good quality reviews. The corrections were checked and the manuscript accepted in 5 hours! A great experience compared to other journals.
Journal of Medical Internet Research
8.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
6 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was excellent and very time-efficient.
The editor has provided great guidance for transferring my submission to the suitable journal and during the review process.
Editor and reviewers’ comments were useful and resulted in an improved manuscript.
Editorial office and support team responded to the questions very clear.
Sociology of Religion
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The comments reflected a very poor understanding of methodology (ie thinking pseudo R^2 means the same thing as R^2) and lack of attention to the paper (ie you should you hierarchical models “instead” when I already was using them). One was just a summary of the argument. They won’t help me actually improve the paper.
Journal of Theoretical Biology
39.3 weeks
39.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
NeuroImage
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
eBioMedicine
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Medical Image Analysis
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Investigative Radiology
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PNAS
n/a
n/a
32 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Took 5 weeks to desk-reject with a 1 line justification.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Swift desk-reject.
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
28.3 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Took 7 months just to get reviews back, had to email editor multiple times to get updates. The first review was mostly positive, but the second review addressed some concerns. The editor decided to reject it.
Nature
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Despite publishing multiple papers on the exact same topic by a prominent group, after almost 4 weeks:

"It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of your findings, or their value to others working in this area, only assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal. In this case, we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal."