Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Medical Internet Research
7.6 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: JMIR provided a seamless submission and very professional and time efficient and valuable review process. The Editor and reviewers' comments were valuable and really helpful in improving the manuscript pre-publication. Great to experience that support, professionalism, effective and supportive communication and efficiency throughout the review process. This sets a benchmark for journal submission and review processes for scientific publications. Especially impressive given this is the leading journal in this area and has a high volume of submissions.
Scientific Reports
18.4 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The only main concern in the whole reviewing process was the time. It took a very long time to obtain the first reviewers comments, although from the comments we understand why. One of the reviewer was not fitted for this and only criticized on how it was premature to publish. The second reviewer and the editorial office performed valuable critics and allowed us to further improve the manuscript. The second revision was rather fast (16.1 weeks because we only submitted the revision after summer holidays) and was promptly accepted in two days. When errors occurred in the submission process, the notifications from the editorial office were prompt and eased the whole process.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Immediately accepted after 0.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: Very fast time from submission to final decision (letter to the editor)
Expert Review of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
8.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Applied Physics Letters
7.9 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Relative slow review process than expected. Reviewers read my paper carefully. Recommend.
BMC Genetics
13.3 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The process was simple, but only one of the reviews provided a full review with explicit recommendations for improvement. Fortunately the associated editor provided useful feedback.

There were minor amendments required by the editorial office that delayed acceptance by a month in each instance, with the requirements on one occasion having already been dealt with previously. Amendments included confirming that a map was original and altering an ethics statement- which could have been handled quickly.
Scientific Reports
8.1 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The actual review process was on time and the reviewer's comments actually improved the manuscript. However we experienced slow processing time before the manuscript was sent for review, and after the acceptance.
International Journal for Equity in Health
12.7 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Initial reviews took a while, but communication with editorial team was very good and they kept me informed of progress. Most of the reviewer comments were helpful and of high quality.
Nature Communications
12.0 weeks
30.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: The turnaround times for all editorial decisions was exceptionally slow. Even after we received 3 review reports indicating now changes were needed, it was almost 1 month before we received acceptance. The manuscript was accepted 6 weeks ago and does not appear in PubMed. I would be hesitant about sending a manuscript here if there were competition and a need for a timely editorial process.
Journal of Phonetics
16.9 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I think the editor handled the manuscript fair and square. It is one of the prestigious journals in the field, and I am glad to see that it is handled well.
New Phytologist
3.6 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
6.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Research Policy
8.0 weeks
32.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: This manuscript would not have been achieved without the highly dedicated support of the reviewers who provided invaluable advice and recommendations on how to it could be restructured and revised. They clearly dedicated a significant amount of time to reviewing the paper and providing extensive review comments that led to a much stronger and more coherent paper.
Aging Cell
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Evolution Letters
8.4 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Political Psychology
13.6 weeks
19.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The response from the response was rather quick, compared to many other journals. The comments were rather minimal, but they both spotted a couple of (potentially quite embarrassing) infelicities, which is very helpful.
Journal of Late Antiquity
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: With my rejection I received two quite detailed, extended reviews, which were very useful. The article was accepted by the next journal practically without corrections, which should be some indication of the quality of the reviews of JLA.
Journal of Theological Studies
33.6 weeks
33.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: It was a short note for which I received some quite useful feedback with the acceptance.
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
Motivation: My article submission was rejected without any peer review feedback. I requested feedback and received no response.
Microbiome
3.9 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Cognition
13.6 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The first review round took much too long for a tentative acceptance outcome.
JAMA Internal Medicine
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journals of Gerontology, Series A
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Research on Chemical Intermediates
9.0 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine
11.0 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The journal advertises a mean time untl first decision is delivered of 25 days, but we had to wait for 2 months. The submission system worked fine. They only managed to get 1 reviewer for our manuscript, but given the theme, we were expecting it. The reviewer comments were fair and everything he/she said helped us to improve the quality of our mauscript.
Chemistry of Materials
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science
12.0 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were of very high quality, and the referee comments certainly improved the manuscript. The complete process outcome was positive. The editorial times, however, were very long: both the initial filtering and the final editorial changes took longer than the referee process itself, which we found surprising.
Brain and Language
34.4 weeks
35.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: This paper essentially disappeared without trace for 8 months after I submitted it. I would periodically email the journal staff about it and they'd say that the action editor was still looking for reviewers. After 8 months, I emailed the action editor directly to say (very politely) that it was getting a bit ridiculous now. They were very apologetic and said that they only had one review but could make a decision based on that. They asked for minor revisions, which we completed within a few days. The paper was accepted without a second round of review, to our relief.
ACS Chemical Biology
4.3 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
IEEE Intelligent Systems
13.7 weeks
27.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Although, the initially, 2 reviewers suggested major revision and one reviewer rejected the paper. The editor asked for a major revision which was made but the reviewer who rejected still didnt agree with the quality of the paper after the revision as well and later, the paper was rejected.
Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation
6.9 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Science of the Total Environment
2.9 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Renewable Energy
17.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
BBA Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: We got 2 reviews with only minor amendments. However before sending for review and after it, the editorial decisions took long time. Overall process was however quick.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
3.4 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Accepted
Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition
7.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Materials Chemistry
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Heredity
2.1 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Before submitting to this journal I emailed the editor as I was not sure if my work was within the scope. I received a reply on the same day inviting me to submit. This very speedy and professional response was repeated with all communications with the managing editor and editor in chief. I was also given very good advice on how to best improve a table which would appear in the main text and allowed to submit associated files both as supplementary data on the journal webpage as well as in Dryad (paid for by Journal of Heredity). Both reviewers were extremely speedy and gave good critiques in a friendly and professional manner. Overall the personal attention to detail and swift clear communication style of the editors is best I have ever experienced.