Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer clearly hadn't read/understood the paper, other reviewer gave good comments.
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Pretty slow for immediate rejection, especially with no reason given for rejection at all.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor deemed the manuscript wasn't a sufficient advance to qualify it into the top 10% of papers submitted so rejected very quickly (same day). Happy with that turn-around and justification.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast to immediate rejection. Rejected because it was deemed not in the top 20% of papers submitted. Fair enough, no complaints on this one.
13.0 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Would have liked faster rejection speed for a rejection without sending to reviewers
8.3 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall this was a good review process. I would have liked it to be a bit faster, but otherwise I have no complaints.
8.0 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
15.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: This was a strange case. Three reviewers: 1 strong rejection that defended their own past work rather than addressing anything in the manuscript itself; 1 intermediate review that found no real flaws with the manuscript, but suggested a stronger conservation focus would make it more suitable for the journal; and, 1 very detailed, critical and helpful review that strongly recommended publication in Conservation Letters after addressing the comments.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Pretty slow to reject without review.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No real criticisms. The speed to immediate rejection was fast, which is what you want if getting rejected without review.
n/a
n/a
32 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I found taking 32 days to reject without sending to review quite unacceptable.
8.1 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review process a bit slow - this was a review article and since the review phase took so long we had to update the review with the new papers that had come out since then (quite a lot actually). Besides one of the reviewers was overzealous, picking on things that made no sense. The other two were quite fine. The editor is charming. Once the revised version was submitted the decision happened fat. Overall a nice experience.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
80 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
31.7 weeks
45.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: After a very long revision process (four revisions over a period of one year –first revision arrived after 7 months), and when the 3 external reviewers were satisfied with the changes made, the editor-in-chief rejected the paper without any justification (white space below “Reviewers and/or Editors' comments”). During this long process of over 1 year and 4 revisions, no deficiency in the content of the paper was ever mentioned by the Editor. Editor comments were addressed in relation to format and English language, which were addressed sending the manuscript to a professional English corrector. Despite this authoritarian way of handling papers is allowed by Elsevier rules (“The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final”), this revision process has not followed a regular procedure according to what is commonly understood in the scientific community as a correct peer-review process.

Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.7 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The work focused on the use of a disease model to predict the public health benefit of a disease intervention. The reviewers, while knowledgeable about virology, *both* stated in their reviewers they had no background in mathematical modeling, and seemed focused on more 'within-host' aspects. Thus, the claim that the work was not "technically sound in method and analysis" was quite infuriating.
4.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
39.3 weeks
65.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: After acceptance on 17-11-2015, it took more than 15 (!) months to finally get the paper published on 20-02-2017. This was quite a frustrating experience.
6.6 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional approach by the editor and the reviewers.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was extremely different (both very positive, though): while one of them really understood the paper and made very useful suggestions, the other one made the impression that the reviewer was not familiar with some basic linguistic notions.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: It was clear from the reviews that they were not competent enough in the specific topic.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I had the impression that all the reviewers and the editor took a lot of time to read the paper and make very constructive suggestions.
n/a
n/a
97 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There was clear evidence that the editors had read the manuscript and appreciated it, but simply felt that the novelty and scope were not suitable for Neuron.
3.9 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
121 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
68 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Too slow ending with a very short report by a solo reviewer or editorial member after 4 months
9.3 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
18.9 weeks
31.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
20.7 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I was expecting a longer duration of getting the paper accepted since we reported a qualitative study. The editor was nice and provided constructive comments.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.3 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
14.4 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was factual, thorough and speedy. I was highly satisfied with both communication with editor and commentaries addressed by reviewers.
11.4 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: Given both the contradictory conclusions provided by the reviewers and note of the Editor to try to shorten the manuscript for a completely new submission, I officially asked the Editorial Board to reconsider the decision on the manuscript. As the rewiever #2 considered the changes made in the resubmitted text as unsatisfactory, I provided an additional detailed explanation and justification of the whole manuscript and its rationale to the Editorial Board - including thorough justification of the only part that could not be fully satisfied to reviewer #2 (it concerned the shortening of the analysis section which would, however, in turn result to substandard analysis with oversimplified conclusions). However, the Chief Editor simply confirmed the previous rejection with an additional criticism to another issues not confronted in the previous steps of the review process.
4.7 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
11.6 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: I am a frequent submitter to WRR and always have a positive experience. In this case the reviews were a bit less rigorous than usual, but overall the process was easy, quick, and fair.