Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Cortex
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
ISME Journal
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
13.4 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process was very slow.
Accident Analysis and Prevention
n/a
n/a
60 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Ageing and Society
14.6 weeks
23.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: First round of the review process took a bit long but overall the reviewers provided constructive and helpful feedback.
Journal of Pension Economics and Finance
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
European Union Politics
10.8 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very tough comments from 4 reviewers.
The best experience I ever had with a journal's editorial staff!
Excellent final editing. They replicated all my analyses!
Omega: Journal of Death and Dying
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Food Chemistry
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I don't think that somebody actually read our manuscript before rejecting it as we received a manuscript number (which usually means that an editor was assigned) just 2 minutes before the rejection. In addition, 3 weeks for an immediate rejection is simply too long.
Journal of Neural Engineering
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were good. There were only some editorial suggestions.
Enviromental Science and Technology
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Economics and Philosophy
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: Review from an economist who admitted s/he was not familiar with the philosophical issues. His/her only real substantive complaint boiled down to my paper not looking 'formal enough'. Review was full of misunderstandings about the philosophical motivation of my project (in fact, the reviewer at one point claimed my thesis was 'p', when it in fact was 'not p'). I really don't know why an editor would take such a review seriously. I won't be submitting to this journal for a long time.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
25.0 weeks
51.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Games and Economic Behavior
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Good analysis, but limited understanding of the relation with the existing literature
Review of Economic Studies
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Relatively well argumented desk rejection
Nano Letters
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There were two different papers submitted. In both cases the time the editors took was about 3 weeks.
In my opinion this is a bit too much time for "immidiate" rejection of a 4 pages letter.
American Journal of Physics
16.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Journal of Product Innovation Management
12.6 weeks
56.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Climatic Change
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Transparent, fast and comprehensible decision. Would definitely submit there again.
Nature Plants
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Paper was sent to three reviewers. The first, gave a very detailed negative feedback, the second a general and very positive one and the third reviewer, although positive, did obviously not understand the paper. Comprehensible decision, would submit there again.
Ecology
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Nature Geoscience
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Ecology Letters
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Schizophrenia Research
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nano Letters
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 5.0 days
Drawn back
Journal of Materials Chemistry
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Microbiology
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PNAS
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Analyst
1.3 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Note that this was an invited critical review, so this may have been factored in by the editorial staff to expedite publication.
Biomedical Optics Express
7.0 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Scientific Reports
6.6 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
PNAS
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Methods
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
4.9 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review process overall was quick and helpful, and led to an improved paper.
mBio
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Schizophrenia Bulletin
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Geologica Carpathica
15.4 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The work on the manuscript by the editors of GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA was excellent. A little long seemed only to be waiting for reviews (but the reviews were very well done and helpful in improving the manuscript). So that the overall rating is very good.