Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Social Forces
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The second review was about 127 words.
In the first review, the reviewer adressed a question about the statistical method showing that he do not understand what this method is about. More precisely, he asked what variable was in the x axis of the graph, whereas the in PCA/MCA methods, x and y axis cannot be a given variable
Learning and Memory
7.4 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Political Geography
16.6 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Information Sciences
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: As the best comment may serve the first review I've got:

This paper has not reached to the acceptable level for publication in this top journal and lacks originality and novelty. The technical depth of this paper is superficial. No new techniques are presented in this paper. Authors need to bring novelty and originality to their work. Thus, the paper in the current form is not suitable for publication in this top journal. I reject this paper.

which is a clear evidence that the reviewer has not seen the work. The editor should not allow such reviews.
Computational Mechanics
9.9 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although the review times were very reasonable, the online submission service would benefit from some method of tracking the progress of the article.
European Journal of Politics and Gender
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: Got a courtesy mail when the reviews took longer than expected. Disappointed to be rejected with no flaws in the manuscript, but a bunch of smaller issues. Very clear communication from the editor.
Scientific Reports
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Behavioral Ecology
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: I appreciate every paper is different, and editors are extremely busy, but in this case the editor rejected the ms because they deemd it not significant enough of a contribution to the field. I respect that decsion, althought I would of course argue the point. However, given the editor's opinion, sending it out for revision and the long (for the field) decsion process seems like a waste of everyone's time. It was certainly frustrating. The reviewers comments will be useful in revising the manuscript, but not 4 months useful. This journal also requires specific formatting which contributes to further wasted time. I hope they can modernise a bit to make it a bit less frustrating for potential authors in the future, or at least display publication/ decsion statistics similar to the journal of Animal Behaviour.
Journal of Applied Geophysics
16.0 weeks
42.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
New England Journal of Medicine
21.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Rejected
Motivation: A very long process with no revision for 5 months, then rejection for "lack of space".
Advanced Biosystems
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We originally submitted our manuscript to the journal Advanced Science (Manuscript ID: advs.201900965) on April 25 2019 and it was rejected on May 14 2019 (almost 3 weeks later) without being submitted for review. In the rejection, the editor of the journal offered transfer to Advanced Biosystems. After discussing the issue with the Editor, he said that "within our portfolio, your paper would suits best for Advanced Biosystems so I cannot guarantee peer-review in any other journal" Thus, we transferred our manuscript to Advanced Biosystems. For my enormous and unpleasant surprise, on May 24 (9 days after!!!), I received an email from the handling assistant editor justifying the rejection of our manuscript (indeed without submission to reviewers) with the following words:

"Unfortunately, we are not able to consider it further for publication. We're sorry for this unsuccessful transfer. As we receive many more manuscripts than we can possibly publish, or even send out for review, we are forced to adopt a stringent selection process. We therefore can only select those manuscripts we believe will interest the broadest possible section of our readership and represent a significant breakthrough of general interest.
We therefore did not want to delay this decision and wish you success in submission of the manuscript to another journal."

Overall, this cannot defined as handling but as mishandling of our manuscript. I am doubtful that the assistant editor in Advanced Biosystems read or understood the manuscript.
Macromolecules
7.0 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
PNAS
n/a
n/a
36 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Advanced Materials
2.4 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very satisfied with the publication process at Advanced Materials. Very efficient handling of the manuscript, prompt responses between authors and editors, and reasonable revision requests to the manuscript. Would submit future work for publication here.
Schizophrenia Bulletin
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was clear, and the comments from the editor and reviewers were very helpful.
Landscape Ecology
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Review of International Political Economy
19.3 weeks
32.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Very incompetent reviewers, did everything requested, nonetheless rejected in second round with new objections that weren't raised in the first round. No further reasons given by the editors. Probably not a good journal to submit to if you use econometrics.
Chemosphere
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: A quick review and excellent reviewers
Development and Change
n/a
n/a
29 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cretaceous Research
14.1 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
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.