Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Cleaner Production
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: At least 8 points of (in my opinion) minor relevance were presented as reasons for the rejection by the editor. For example, changes in a few units, no plural in the keywords, column headers of a table shouldn´t be presented in a vertical way...
Immissionsschutz
Immediately accepted after 3.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: Revision comments of the editor were send back after 3 weeks (even though there were nearly no working days due to christmas eve and new year holiday time) and of high quality.
Angewandte Chemie
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick response by the editor, appreciated.
Journal of the American Chemical Society
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The quick response was highly appreciated
Cell Chemical Biology
6.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Favorite experience at a journal thus far. Editors were responsive, transparent, and fair. From my perspective, it felt like the editors made an effort to keep the review and editorial process efficient with as few gaps in handling as possible.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Surface and Coatings Technology
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
4
Rejected
Journal of Neuroscience
6.0 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall acceptance rate and editorial rejection rate is about 30% and 25%, respectively. In the case of revision, "Your revision must include..." or "Your resubmission must include..." will be described. In former case, it is rather positive, however, in latter case, there is a risk for rejection after review.

In recent days, competitive neuroscience journals such as eLife, Nature Communications, Scientific reports were released and the impact factor of JNeurosci was declined. However, a journal that performs fair pair review is still JNeurosci.
Oncogenesis
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Energy
30.4 weeks
32.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The changes proposed by reviewers were quite interesting and contributed to the paper improvement; however, the first review was slow and took too much time to be accomplished.
Environmental Science and Technology
5.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Standard review times, mostly helpful comments, four reviews was a lot to deal with but OK, in-house copy editors are easy to deal with.
Coloration Technology
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Migration Studies
27.9 weeks
51.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: We had a difficult reviewer and one with more generic comments. The editor did not seem too much at ease to filter non-sensical requests from the useful contributions, but in the end we got a decent paper out.
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse
9.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
International Journal of Water
19.9 weeks
24.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: The handling of manuscript is relatively slow even for small/minor changes
International Psychogeriatrics
6.4 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: quick responses, excellent reviewers. Their comments were very valuable and improved the manuscript
Journal of Medical Internet Research
4.6 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: We are satisfied with how Journal of Medical Internet Research handled our manuscript, the review process was nimble. As researchers we are grateful that the process was not as
time-consuming as our experience with other journals. It is remarkable taking into account that JMIR is a prestigious journal.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
19.7 weeks
31.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
MDPI Materials
0.6 weeks
0.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: The turnaround time was very short and the process was very efficient. The quality of the referee reports was not the best, but I've experienced receiving referee reports of much poorer quality after a significantly longer wait.
Sociological Forum
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were all experts in the field and enable to propose references to further discuss our arguments.
Their carefull reading pointed tiny points (such as the use of abreviation) that still need improvements.
Their reviews help the manuscript revision.
Human Movement Science
43.9 weeks
49.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: I believe that the manuscript got lost, because a second reviewer agreed to review, but did never do the review. After contacting the editor the first time 6 month and a second time 9 month later, I received the feedback of the first reviewer. In the end, this was nice.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 197.6 days
Drawn back
Motivation: I sent reminders to the editor after 3 months, and kept getting emails that either our paper was waiting for reviews which were due within 2 weeks or that they were still looking for a reviewer. After 6.5 months I gave up and withdrew the paper.
Physical Review X
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Just the usual "not enough surprise" comment.
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing
14.7 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, I am happy with the revision process. Although I had to revise the manuscript twice, I feel its quality improved noticeably. I really appreciate the great effort made by the reviewers (specially one of them).
Nature Communications
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: We were terribly frustrated by the slow pace of the editorial and production staff at Nature Communications during the entire publishing process. You'd expect better service considering their exorbitant publishing fee.
Journal of Spectral Theory
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
CNS Drugs
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cognition
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Annals of Tourism Research
7.0 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Nature Communications
4.4 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: One reviewer suggested additional genetic experiments, so we had to grow plants (for 16 weeks) and report the results. The manuscript definitively improved after revision. After resubmision the editorial decision was made in 40 days. The editor was professional, understanding and polite.
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Editors were very gracious and helpful in dealing with my medical leave that took place while paper was under review and was still happening when I got the decision
Plant Biotechnology Journal
Immediately accepted after 35.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
PLoS ONE
7.0 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Additive Manufacturing
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
ACS Catalysis
4.4 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript was sent to two reviewers. Reviews were insightful and helped improve the manuscript. Both suggested minor revision. The revised manuscript was accepted for publication.
Road Materials and Pavement Design
13.1 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast manuscript handling, good communication with the editor. Blind review required.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work on [topic], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
9.3 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Climatic Change
35.1 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Actually, we initially submitted this as a comment to an article previously published in the same journal, so there was a review prior to the first review shown here. We were generally pleased with the reviewers' comments and with higher level editors responsiveness. However, the reviews and the editorial handling of the reviews took too long. We had to repeatedly ask for updates.
Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention
1.7 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I was satisfied both with the quality of the reviews I received for this manuscript and the time taken from first submission to acceptance.