Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Geosciences Journal
8.1 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
eNeuro
3.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review was fast. The reviewers' comments were insightful and helpful.
Soft Matter
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: While our manuscript was rejected, both editors and reviewers were reasonably fair and balanced, and suggested an alternative journal for publication. The manuscript was quickly accepted after transferring to another journal. Communication was quick and so was the review process.
Resources Policy
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Empirical Economics
78.0 weeks
111.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: The paper was simply not forwarded for months. After a year we had to ask twice until we got an answer and the paper was forwarded to reviewers.
Circulation
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: Only one reviewer. Many other premier journals in this field supplies review comments from 3 reviewers. Extremely poor review of a reviewer that had clearly not given the paper the attention submissions to a premier journal such as Circulation deserves. Unclear reasons for rejection. Long time to first decision, which was supplied only after asking about the status of our submission.
Journal of Plasma Physics
4.7 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Response was quick and detailed; reviewer reports were comprehensive and constructive
Vox Sanguinis
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
International Journal of Implant Dentistry
7.1 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
International Journal of Radiation Biology
8.1 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
PLoS Biology
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
American Journal of Plant Sciences
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The journal has improved considerably in terms of the quality of the articles published in recent years, however, it should still improve in terms of the speed of final editorial work, prior to manuscript acceptance. Something negative is the high cost for publication in a journal that is not yet part of the JCR
Biologicals
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Regenerative Therapy
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Platelets
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
Journal of Biogeography
n/a
n/a
57 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We received only cursory justification for rejection (2 sentences), related to lack of perceived novelty. I accepted the decision (perhaps I chose the wrong journal), but was highly disappointed by the amount of time it took to make this decision. I'm going to submit this paper to a preprint server before I resubmit to another journal.
Research in Engineering Design
26.0 weeks
50.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was good and the paper improved as a result. However, the overall process was extremely (and unnecessarily) long.Took six months to get the first reviews. Several critiques but really minor in nature. We re-submitted as fast as possible hoping that the editor would give us a fast acceptance but that wasn't the case and the paper was re-sent to the reviewer. Fair enough, but it took almost another 6 months to hear from them again. This time they came back with super minor things. We revise and resubmit within a short time. To our disbelief, it went back to the reviewer again and took more than a month to get their reply which was obviously to accept the paper.
Geologica Carpathica
15.7 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: It was a great pleasure to work with very professional and kind Members of the Geologica Carpathica journal, as well as with external anonymous Reviewers. Everything was perfect, from the first moment of registration at submission system to the final technical quality and design of the published Manuscript.
Journal of Plant Physiology
7.0 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The process was quite fast but rigorous
ACS Nano
3.7 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Toxins
1.3 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Peer review was quite superficial. Perhaps more strict and detailed reviews would have contributed more.
Myrmecological News
9.3 weeks
25.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Peer review was strong and strict, and suggestions offered not only by reviewers but also editors have benefitted the manuscript. However a couple of times we felt minor suggestions were needlessly imposed, e.g. manuscript title changed without asking.
Molecular and Cellular Probes
4.3 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Systematic Entomology
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The suggestions made by the editorial board upon rejecting the manuscript were good, although far-fetched (e.g. genomic analyses of numerous samples, meaning a new investigation completely). I think it is a strong journal, if same standards are applied to everyone.
Micron
3.4 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Overall the submission process and review were fast and straightforward. Apart from some problem with the manuscript submission system, all was fine. (No manuscript number was assigned at first and received an error message followed by support, but apparently caused no delay). The handling editor was very efficient for speed. I'd have appreciated lengthier reviews, though: 3 reviewers made rather superficial suggestions. I however believe they were selected from reviewers I suggested, so this was not up to the journal and next time I'll just suggest others.
ACS Nano
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
ACS Nano
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
10.7 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Middle East Fertility Society Journal
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Neuropsychologia
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
10.3 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was overall very long, and some of the reviewers' comments were not relevant to our manuscript. The editor was, however, very understanding when it came to decide which additional experiments were needed and which ones were not. Overall, the manuscript's quality improved considerably during the review process, mostly due to the additional experiments we were requested to do.
The proofs of the article required us a thorough review, because several mistakes (e.g. loss of italic, mislabel of references) had been introduced by the company that dealt with the manuscript.
Chemistry: A European Journal
4.4 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Nutrition Research
14.4 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Its an international science citation indexed journal
Journal of Endocrinology and Diabetes
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: This Journal is one of the outstanding scientific Journals in endocrinology and diabetes
Advanced Materials
2.9 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Editorial policy was used to finally judge the paper. Requesting a large animal study to support an already extensive work is unreasonable.