Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
2.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Fluid Dynamics and Materials Processing
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
Carbohydrate Research
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Biochemical Engineering Journal
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Materials Science and Engineering, C: Materials for Biological Applications
18.2 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editor's expert manner and the scientific high quality comments from the reviewers indicate the quality of this journal. Though at the beginning it took two months for assigning the editor, which was due to editorial board changes, the rest of the peer review process was fast and smooth.
Cell Metabolism
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Terribly long for an immediate rejection, we lost our time.
We wonder if we were in competition with one of the editor who is working in the same field. He wasn't the handling editor of the paper but we wouldn't be surprised if the paper was send to him for internal review, this would explain the immediate rejection after such a long time.
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
17.1 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Review process took too long. 5 reviews were included. 4 out of 5 were not useful. 1 reviewer performed a detailed, thoughtful review which was hard to conform to but improved the manuscript after editing.
Circulation
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer gave an excellent report, the other was terrible. The first reviewer asked for extensive additional experiments, all perfectly relevant. The second reviewer advised to reject the paper despite being incompetent on the subject (most of his criticisms didn't make sens). In the end the editor choose to reject the paper, saying that doing everything the first reviewer was asking for was too much work for a review. Overall the all process was quick, we were just disapointed that one of the reviewers was not qualified on the subject.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Plant Ecology
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Australian Journal of Botany
6.4 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Brain
n/a
n/a
367 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: I had a very bad experience with submitting in PLoS One. After 5 weeks of revision, we email the editor. She said that she had only one revision and she had asked more than eleven potential reviewers. The entire review process took very long time (11 weeks) and we received one bad revision and another consisting in two lines saying that our work was ok but already published somewhere but the reviewer did not include that reference.
Scientific Reports
22.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Ecography
26.9 weeks
26.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: Six months under review without any in-between note! The reviews were extremely weak. We could not basically learn anything useful from the reviews to improve the manuscript. The reviews were in the lines: May be your global study was biased? Why did not you include the data of the home country of the reviewer in your global data set?
Ecology Letters
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "The work is well conducted, but it provides another example of [...]. There is a huge literature on this. The work is clearly publishable, but it is not what Ecology Letters is looking to publish"
PNAS
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "Although this work is interesting, it does not have the broad appeal needed for PNAS and is better suited for a more specialized journal"
Nature Climate Change
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick immediate rejection but reasons were unclear.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rather quick immediate rejection (12 days) but much longer than other nature journals.
ACS Nano
3.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of the American Chemical Society
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
ACS Nano
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nanoscale
5.4 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature Chemistry
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Angewandte Chemie
3.4 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Nano Letters
5.6 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Energy and Fuels
3.7 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Materials Science
4.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Energy Research and Social Science
2.7 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Benjamin Sovacool and his team are THE SUPREME journal editors. Quick turnaround time, personalized service, and excellent review quality. I knew that such quality was possible, but I had never seen it before in my 20 years in academia. HATS OFF to ERSS.
Armed Forces and Society
104.2 weeks
109.2 weeks
n/a
10 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: I have published in the journal more than once. The same thing on both occasions...effectively, five rounds of review on each occasion. I like the journal, but the review process is just burdensome. I would think twice about further submissions. It is one of those journals you have to "hit" once if you work in that area of research.
Public Opinion Quarterly
13.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Social Science Computer Review
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Social Science Computer Review
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Journal of Mathematical Biology
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
33.7 weeks
52.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: In the overall, review comments were fairly constructive and helpful. However, the editorial process was not that efficient. It took more than six months until the initial decision was rendered. Most of the time, the journal office could not find any AE who shall handle my manuscript and the initial decision was rendered by one of their in-house editors. The review process of the revised manuscript was not that better. The journal office spent nearly a couple of months to invite an AE. I had to email the journal office almost monthly to keep all the things not being forgotten and/or abandoned by the office staff.
IET Renewable Power Generation
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science Translational Medicine
11.0 weeks
45.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: Our initial experience was that although the reviewing process was a bit slow, we got very useful and constructive comments. After the second revision however, communication with the handling editor was sparse, and multiple emails had to be sent in order to get an update on our manuscript. In the last revision round the editor allowed at least 8 weeks before reviewer comments' submission, further delaying the process. After acceptance of our paper, there were another 6 months before the manuscript was published online, again due to difficulties in communication with the editor. We consider that our manuscript was not handled in the most professional way.
Marine Biology
9.1 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although the process took an extended amount of time, I was happy with the way that the manuscript was handled. Incorporating reviewers' suggestions required a lot of work but were ultimately helpful and substantially improved my manuscript.
Global Ecology and Biogeography
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was not considered fit for the journal.