Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
3.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.4 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
3.4 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
5.6 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.7 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
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.
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.
13.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
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.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was not considered fit for the journal.
2.6 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.4 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: the process was extremely fast, and both reviewers and editor were highly professional.
6.4 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: Since there was a contradiction between reviewers, we expected editors to solicit additional opinion about the manuscript from practicing scientists. They did not and eventually took a decision after discussing with other editorial colleagues.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We literally have paid for nothing by submitting to the Journal of Empirical Finance. I have the impression that the editor in charge of my paper has not even read it, as there was just a copy-pasted message suggesting that our paper was not fit for the readership of the journal. I am aware that high desk rejection rates are common in top journals, but what bothers are two issues: 1) not any feedback at all and 2) not even recommending for the article transfer service (ATS), which connecting 1 and 2, passes the impression of our work not being read at all. After paying high submission fees, a minor feedback would be expected if the work was minimaly evaluated.
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Drawn back
8.6 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Transfer of the manuscript from the server platform to the editor took about 1-2 days. Forwaring or decisions of the editor were done within 1 day.
8.1 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
2
Accepted
Motivation: We got a single short review asking us to shorten the manuscript and write a more focused discussion. It was clear that the reviewer had not read the paper in detail. For example, he/she identified several points made in the manuscript as being interesting. Half of these were actually just citing/explaining/discussing other people's work. Overall it was a very poor review. We resubmitting after shortening the manuscript by about 10% and the editor accepted it without further review.
4.9 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers made useful comments. One recommended a minor revision and the other a rejection. The editor asked us to re-submit the paper. In the end, one of the reviewers disagreed with a couple of our claims in the manuscript but he was OK with it being published. I was very happy with the editor and reviewers overall.
4.3 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
4.3 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
9.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers raised some valid concerns, the manuscript was improved by their comments.
8.4 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Drawn back
Motivation: The first round of review was already frustrating. One of the reviewer gave good feedback with a lot of thoughts on improvement and also some more tricky questions that we addressed in the next version of the manuscript. The other reviewer gave no feedback, just an "outright reject" without any reasoning. When resubmitting the manuscript, we asked for another reviewer as it was obvious that the second reviewer just wanted to block the publication in general. The editor refused to search for another reviewer and said we should "convince" him/her.
After another two months without any reply from the second reviewer (the first one accepted the manuscript in its revised version) we decided to withdraw the manuscript and resubmit it to another journal. It was accepted there after 6 weeks with 7 (!) really positive reviewer feedbacks. We will never submit anything to Nature Energy again.
6.5 weeks
8.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
3.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
16.4 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: I found the revision process too long, but the revisions improved the ms.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Even though an editor from another, related journal (Expert Systems with Applications) proposed to transfer the manuscript to this journal for reasons of fit, the editor of ASC rejected it straight away because it was deemed out of scope for the journal.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)