Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Nature Nanotechnology
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: takes 4 months for external review and got rejected, too long
Advanced Materials
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editor suggested to transfer to Adv. Func. Mater. based on the reviewers' reports. It was fine besides the reviewing time that was more than 10 weeks.
Advanced Functional Materials
4.4 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: We were lucky to have a fair editor. Although one of the reviewers came up with an unconstructive criticism during the second review round, the editor decided to accept the paper after our response.
ACS Photonics
6.1 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, a fair review process. Just rather long processing time.
Journal of Experimental Medicine
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy
7.4 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' comments are professional and constructive. The overall editorial process is timely.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems
18.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The comments are overall constructive and professional.
European Political Science Review
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Autism
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
1
Rejected
Autism
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Scientific Data
11.4 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Professional and friendly communication with editor, reviewers were high quality and looked at the manuscript throughout, good suggestions.
Microbiome
n/a
n/a
29 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Elife
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Medical Internet Research
13.7 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The Peer review was good. But the manuscript was with the editor since the editor could not find peer-reviewers. After the recommendation, the paper was sent out for review. After corrections the paper was finally accepted. The proofs parts was like another review which took quite some effort and time.
Ecology Letters
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review, very good revisions that really aimed to help. Reviewers had good comments so the rejection was a little bit unexpected, but we understand as it is a competetive journal. Editor argued that the corrections suggested by the referees would turn the manuscript too long for this journal, and thus they recommended transference to another journal.
Journal of Experimental Medicine
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cancer
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 107.0 days
Drawn back
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Frontiers in Psychiatry
14.1 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Nature Communications
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Science Translational Medicine
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science Advances
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Earthquake Spectra
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Canadian Geotechnical Journal
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Geomechanics
16.3 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Epidemiology and health
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
Academy of Management Annals
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 3.0 days
Drawn back
Doklady Chemistry
7.7 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Retina
3.4 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Science
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
GeroScience
7.1 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The submission process was relatively straightforward, the review time was reasonable, and reviewers' comments were thoughtful and and relevant for the manuscript. It was also much appreciated that the second revision (which only included a relatively small change) was reviewed within a day and a notification of acceptance was sent out.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: One review was rather unreasonable in asking more of everything, way beyond what the page limit would allow--not that anything was particularly bad, but nothing was enough for them. The other reviewer was more pointed with mostly relevant feedback.
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
3.3 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very smooth and quick. We took a while to resubmit the manuscript because we had to wait for some reagents to arrive in order to carry out one of the experiments suggested in the first round of revision. Our manuscript improved a lot as a result of the reviewers' suggestions.
American Naturalist
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Drawn back
Motivation: There was a delay as one reviewer could not provide the comments in time and they had to seek another reviewer. The editorial office was very professional and informed me of this situation soon after it happened. Otherwise, everything was smooth,
Behavioral Ecology
7.0 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The entire review process was fast and smooth. The comments, though relatively minor, were fair and constructive. It did take the handling editor longer than expected to accept the paper given it was only minor revision, but no real complaint there, either.
Mathematische Annalen
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
Experimental Eye Research
9.4 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: very professional journal