Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Mathematical Biosciences
22.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: Firstly, I would like to underline that the time was very long. Indeed, I remember that the review process by the reviewers took less than one month but the manuscript stayed a very long time before and after with the editor (4 months in total !).
Secondly, if it really was a problem of scope why sending it to reviewers (wasting their time, and mine at the same time), and taking so long to make this decision ?
Finally, one of the review was positive (with few changes that we've done since) but the second one was not really constructive.
Journal of Mathematical Biology
16.9 weeks
29.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The process overall was excellent, but the reviews took a lot of time.
MATCH Communications in Mathematical and in Computer Chemistry
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers seemed to be experts and considerded also the details of the manuscript (for instance an incorrect index of a variable). The process was fast and uncomplicated.
Cancer Science
6.9 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review system is speedy. This is helpful for the authors.
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
12.0 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
0
Accepted
Geology
5.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
PLoS ONE
29.0 weeks
54.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Drawn back
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Overall, I was happy with the whole process. The only downside was that one of the reviewers clearly did not read the manuscript properly, but simply wrote a few lines with general questions (which were all answered in the manuscript upon closer reading). The other 2 reviewers' comments were useful however, and the editor also read the manuscript, so it was compensated for.
Revista de Estudos Criminais
Immediately accepted after 0.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Biogeosciences
13.4 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature Plants
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
13.0 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: the revision process was good, It took 4 month for acceptance. But I found a problem in proof-editing.
Nature Microbiology
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
22.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The review period was too long (almost 6 months) and the editor decided to reject the paper, even having only minor revisions from the two reviewers.
Oncotarget
4.9 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer's comments were so severe, but excellent that our manuscript has been improved by their comments. We appreciate the reviewers for their efforts to improve our manuscript.
Oncotarget
4.0 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review system of Oncotarget is so speedy. This is so helpful for the authors.
Advanced Healthcare Materials
2.3 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Biological Conservation
15.5 weeks
15.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
PeerJ
7.0 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Ecology
14.4 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: After a initial review the paper was a reject and resubmit. I took the reviews seriously and resubmitted in about 6 weeks. The reviews were gery helpful.
Geologica Carpathica
8.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Elife
1.4 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was quick, however two of the reviewers were tightly affiliated with each other and the third was from the same field, which we felt was strange since our work is at the interface of two independent topics. The rejection decision was mainly based on the reviewing editors view.
Muscle and Nerve
n/a
n/a
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Both editor-in-chief and associate editor along with 2 reviewers made important contributions to the manuscript. The review reports were of high quality. The only drawback was a bit long review speed, but overall I would send another manuscript to this journal in the future.
Personality and Social Psychology Review
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very courteous and helpful editor. 10/10 would submit again to this journal.
Diversity and Distributions
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Journal of Applied Ecology
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
21.9 weeks
25.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process took a reasonable time (a bit more than 6 months) and review quality was good and improved the manuscript. I appreciate that the journal is also asking to improve the paper visibility by adding an image and a blog post.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
14.7 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The editors at this journal are lovely and helpful with good constructive advise. However the whole process takes too long overall compared to other journals and so while I have enjoyed publishing in this journal (four times now) I will likely try elsewhere with my papers next time, for a quicker result.
Microsystem Technologies
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The status update on the website was slow but the editorial office responds swiftly.
Sports Medicine
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: While the manuscript was rejected the decision was quick.
BMC International Health and Human Rights
23.4 weeks
44.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Drawn back
Nature Cell Biology
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick rejection with a short, but understandable reasoning.
20.1 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: The editor requested three reports to my paper. The usual procedure is two, but originaly the journal received two conflicting reports. Although my paper was formaly reject in the first round, the editor was clear enough, in the communicating letter, that they would be happy to reconsider my work after revision and that the new version would be sent to the original reviewers.
Journal of the Electrochemical Society
13.0 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Accepted
Communications in Mathematical Physics
n/a
n/a
40 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry
18.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Rejected
Optics Letters
8.1 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Generic response without any feedback of concerns related to the manuscript making difficult to accept that it was given sufficient consideration/appreciation by the editorial team
Construction and Building Materials
2.4 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The work of both editors and production was excellent and fast. The reviewers were obviously professionals in the field. I recommend to publish in this journal.