Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Building Engineering
11.3 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were very constructive and allowed me to improve my manuscript.
Building and Environment
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Biological Conservation
5.4 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Ecological Indicators
8.0 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Environmental Science and Technology
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Ecological Indicators
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Marine Pollution Bulletin
2.3 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Rejected
Ecosystem Services
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Applied Ecology
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Marine Policy
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Marine Policy
9.4 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the review was good. Unfortunately, it took nearly three months for the reviewer to check our revisions. I emailed the editor twice about the delay, and both times the editor replied swiftly, stating that the reviewer had been reminded. After the second reminder to the reviewer, the decision was received within two days.
Nature
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Immediately accepted after 0.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: This was an overall very positive and encouraging publishing experience for our work to be accepted immediately without peer review by the Chief Editor who is a well-known figure for his high-quality, objective and meticulous reviews and feedback.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Business Ethics Quarterly
17.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: Even though one of the reviewers was satisfied the article was rejected on the basis of a luke warm second referee. The second referee brought up a new point - completely misunderstanding the article. The report was very poorly written and showed ZERO competence in the field. Was likely a graduate student. Very disappointing - especially after having done a lot of work on the article to take into account the referee's previous concerns.
Nature Microbiology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I was very happy with the prompt response, which allowed us to move on to other journals.
BMC Public Health
9.0 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively fast, but relatively bad reviews.
Health Policy
10.7 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Drawn back
Motivation: Sorry, but here was no checkbox for the possibility that the editor did never answer after two revisions (I put there the date when the paper was withdrawn). I should explain - the first reviewer was constructive, we followed his/her suggestions, the paper improved, he/she did not have further comments; the second reviewer had mostly comments that we could not accept, he was not satisfied with our explanations. Probably the Editor could not decide and he never informed us. After 27.6 weeks and four unanswered e-mails to the Editorial Office we withdrew the paper.
International Migration
30.9 weeks
45.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Normal review, but with relatively minor revisions particularly the second review process was painfully slow.
20.1 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Science Advances
24.7 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial board was promptly responsive to inquiries about the status of the paper. They handled it professionally, and paid attention to details. Though the initial review took a long time, it was thorough and the editor was unbiased. They also helped with the media coverage to some extent. The typesetting and formatting assistance offered by the journal is helpful. The article processing charge is not low, but it is not as high as comparable journals. Other than the long first round of review time, all the other aspects were positive about my experience with the journal.
Journal of Biological Chemistry
3.9 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
5.0 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Scientific Reports
5.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I found the online submission portal to be quite easy from a user perspective. Reviewer comments were constructive and some of the editorial board comments were too. We found the whole process was pretty clear- however the quality control steps took a very long time to complete.
ISME Journal
19.6 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
2
Rejected
Applied Physics Letters
5.1 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Chemical Engineering Science
12.6 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
15.0 weeks
29.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very quick.
When we needed clarifications by the Editorial Office on the review process, we received answers to our questions very quickly and effectively.
The reviewers chosen by the Journal were able to improve the quality of the paper, suggesting interesting modifications.
Experimental Brain Research
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Journal of Diabetes Mellitus
3.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Wireless Networks
3.1 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Wireless Networks
21.4 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
New Biotechnology
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They provided fair rejection background within a short time.
Project Management Journal
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Immediate reject after 2h. Editor just wrote a single line of 6 words: "fits better in an IT journal". Paper clearly fit with an ongoing discussion in the journal on the same topic, so that the fast and not well argued rejection came very surprising. Everything happened on a Friday afternoon/night, maybe that played a role...
Polymers
2.0 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Tribology International
6.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Tribology International has drastically improved their handling of manuscripts since I last submitted a manuscript. Excellent work!
Journal of Materials Processing Technology
11.9 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted