Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
21.7 weeks
29.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were good and the editorial management was also good. However, the initial round of reviews was excessively long- many many months, which was very difficult. The excessive duration of time for the initial review is the main motivator for the review process rating as above
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
8.7 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I found 4 weeks an unacceptably long time to wait for a desk rejection. I even emailed to the editorial office to find out what was going on, but got a meaningless one-line reply. When other journals can make a decision with 48 hours, I find 4 weeks inexcusable.
3.0 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
7.6 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.6 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.4 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
367 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
22.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
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?
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"
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"
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick immediate rejection but reasons were unclear.
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.