Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Scientific Reports
5.9 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Drawn back
Motivation: Although it was an uneasy decision for us, we have decided to withdraw our manuscript after nearly 8 months of the lengthy review process. We have learned after withdrawal that the journal had a positive (considered for publication ) review from one of the reviewers. The second reviewer, however, has never sent his/her opinion on the revised manuscript (six months after submission, until withdrawal). We think that the journal had multiple options to deal with this situation, for instance they could find another reviewer or take a decision based on the opinion of the first reviewer and the editor assigned to the paper. Since SREP is in the business of APC (article processing charge)-based publishing, it should guarantee to its authors an engagement of a responsible editorial board and a team of trustworthy reviewers in order to structure an effective and operational review process.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
10.6 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
International Journal of Epidemiology
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Rejected
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences
Immediately accepted after 0.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Computers and Mathematics with Applications
14.3 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Rejected
Revista Cientifica General Jose Maria Cordova
2.9 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I am very satisfied with the editorial process of the journal. The editor was very helpful and responded very quickly to some questions I had regarding the editorial process. The turnover was very fast. I have received the comments of the peer-reviewers three weeks after submission. The comments were constructive in nature and helped me finesse the manuscript. It was accepted shortly after I had submitted the manuscript after the suggested revisions. Once the article was published online, I was notified via email, containing all the information and an active DOI, the same day. In addition, the editorial team was very meticulous and took great care to ensure that the final layout would be approved by the respective author and that all information was correct prior to publication—something that does not usually get consulted with manuscript authors. Overall, I would highly recommend this journal to my fellow academics in the field of security studies.
PLoS Medicine
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Thermal Sciences
11.3 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Plant Science
6.1 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: All the review process was correct and fast. I am very satisfied with the review process by this journal
Child Maltreatment
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientometrics
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was transferred to another journal by the same publisher, as per the principal editor's suggestion.
Child Abuse and Neglect
7.1 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Advanced Functional Materials
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Editor who evaluated my paper was not from my field. Her PhD was in Molecular Medicines while my area is semiconductor Physics exactly The LED. It was very bad experience.
Birth
2.9 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: Micromanaging stylistic and subjective critique from editor in chief.
Microbiome
n/a
n/a
99 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Birth
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: Very involved editor with strong opinions and overly directive. Micromanaging. Despite double blind review (excellent pt for editor-in-chief) personal and overly subjective editorial involvement seems evident. Manuscript sent to another reputable journal and accepted in 4 weeks.
PNAS
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers dedicated much time reviewing the manuscript. The comments are helpful to further improve the manuscript contents.
Energy and Fuels
5.0 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
Food Chemistry
19.0 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Foundations of Computational Mathematics
67.0 weeks
67.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: It took FoCM more than a year from the date of submission until we received a response from the editor. One reviewer was clearly an expert and wrote a positive review, recommending only smaller changes. The other reviewer, who was very clearly not an expert on the topic and misunderstood several of our results, wrote a negative report. The editor chose to listen to the non-expert.
Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Communications in Theoretical Physics
9.7 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Entropy
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 3.0 days
Drawn back
Materialia
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is reasonally quick. The comments from the reviewers make sense.
I am satisfied with the whole process.
SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Chinese Journal of International Politics
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I think three weeks was a long wait for a desk reject, but the article was eventually published in a different journal.
International Urogynecology Journal
1.7 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Heterocyclic Communications
2.7 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewing was carried out quickly and efficiently. The comments of the reviewers were very correct.
Polish Journal of Ecology
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Knowledge Management
0.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The EIC is helpful, although his practice may not be generally adopted. A few days after my initial submission, he wrote a fairly long paragraph of constructive feedback asking for my revision but he has made it "rejected" on record. I still submit it again given he explicitly asked me to do so.

I addressed the comments accordingly (after a few months as I was working on other papers and there is no given deadline for such "revision"), and then it went through a more usual practice. Both reviewers were very positive. Only minor edits were needed, and my article was accepted very quickly after the 2nd round revision.
Communist and Post-Communist Studies
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 331.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: Non-responsive editor & exceptionally lengthy time to decision. I suggest to submit your work elsewhere
Cell
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very reasonable comments. The paper was seriously considered, however the novelty was not at the level of excitement for Cell. I wish the immediate rejection would not take full 2 weeks. Also we received the decision letter only after the follow up email.
Social Psychology
8.6 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Social Psychology
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Communications Biology
8.7 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Unlike other nature journals, the publication process in Comms Bio was very smooth. Editors are very committed and efficient.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I only received the standard desk-rejection email. .
European Journal of Neuroscience
4.4 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
5
Accepted
Motivation: I had a great experience with EJN. The comments made by one of the reviewers were not friendly and rather unfounded. The editor handled this with care and gave us a chance for revising the ms and dealing with the unhelpful comments.