Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Nanotechnology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Hydrometallurgy
16.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
0
Rejected
Agricultural Economics
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor contacted an associate editor and we received a very brief and tough response mostly criticizing methodological issues. The editors might reformulate their aims & scope as several papers on a very similar topic using a very similar methodology were published afterwards. The only major difference was that these case studies were located in developing countries.
Acta Materialia
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Catalysis Science and Technology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
The International Journal of Press/Politics
10.8 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The topic was not a fit for the journal, but the paper was taken under review anyhow.
British Journal of Political Science
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was rejected because its topic did not fit the journal. This was a bit strange as I had reviewed a paper for the journal on the exact same topic.
West European Politics
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: My paper was rejected after three R&R recommendations while a very poor paper that I reviewed for this journal was accepted without any of my major concerns addressed.

When I notified the editors about this strange decision, they never responded. They simply sent me an invite to review another paper for them...

As a reviewer, the process is very opaque as you cannot see what other reviewers have advised.
Representation
41.4 weeks
41.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Waited almost nine months, yet I got only one review. The comments from this reviewer were, however, good and constructive .