Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
9.0 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: The overall process was very long. Editor has not done his job. They invited originally 4 reviewers and non of them was available to revise the resubmitted version. Two new reviewers were invited and they reject the manuscript based on argument that questions from reviewer #1 were not addressed. The process was not transparent at all.
Molecular Neurodegeneration
4.3 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Short handling time, constructive reviews, an overall pleasant experience.
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
8.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Great experience, very quick, helpful reviews. One reviewer suggested rejection, the other a r&r. The editors apparently read my submission, too, and opted for a r&r because they saw some merits, as they pointed out. I took the reviews very seriously, and almost each thing pointed out by them made the paper much better. I am very satisfied with this experience.
Diversity and Distributions
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Science
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The experience with Scientific Reports was very mixed; I personally think that 10 weeks is a very long time for a first review;
2 reviewers gave genuinely constructive feedback, with which the manuscript was improved and published in a similarly good journal.
However, 1 reviewer gave overly destructive feedback, with no reason for rejection other than his personal opinion, which could have been proven wrong with a number of references- if the manuscript hadn't been rejected due to his comments. Furthermore things were critisized that were clearly not stated or even implyed as such in the manuscript.
The journal did not answer our email with concerns about this reviewer and references proving his statements wrong.
American Naturalist
12.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Open Geosciences
8.1 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: I cannot rate the review as perfect (score 5) since one of the first rerviewers was not really competent. He/she made practically only technical comments.
New Phytologist
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Following an internal editorial assessement it was decided that the study is limited in scope and novelty, and would be more suitable for a more specialised journal.
New Phytologist
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although I was not satidfied with the quality of the internal editorial assessement I appreciate the speedy editorial handling.
Chemical Science
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Langmuir
3.7 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and efficient.
Journal of Physical Chemistry, B
3.6 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
4
Accepted
Motivation: I am satisfied with my submission process with this journal. The process was fast and the reviewers' comments showed that they were experts in the field.
Nature Physics
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript does not demonstrate the sort of clear conceptual advance with broader implications that would demand the attention of a wider audience of physicists
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
0.9 weeks
0.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Drawn back
ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
14.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
International Journal of Control
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
Automatica
13.0 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
PLoS ONE
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 26.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: We submitted a manuscript which was returned 3.7 weeks later with a note from the Academic Editor requesting revisions to the abstract, clarity on access to data, and more details on the methods. The editorial office also requested a copy of the LaTeX source document and some details on roles and conflicts of interest. We turned all this around in around 4 days and resubmitted. The Editorial Manager interface indicates that the manuscript is out for review. However, it's been over 90 days since the original submission and any inquiries have been responded to promptly with what appears to be polite boilerplate text from the editorial office. This experience is in contrast to an earlier submission, which underwent final disposition (acceptance) including a revision in 87 days. It's possible that the process is simply overwhelmed by many submissions and this is an outlier experience but I must confess to a loss of confidence. So we've requested withdrawal of the manuscript and will find another journal.
Human Molecular Genetics
2.3 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were clearly experts in the field and identified a methodological problem we had overlooked. This clearly improved the paper.
Adsorption
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 125.0 days
Drawn back
Nature
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Rejected
Motivation: In general, the manuscript was processed fast, so the editorial process is quite well organized. But the choose of reviewers was very terrible. Only 1 of 3 referees did really understood the main concepts of the work reported, thus gave relevant comments and asked questions. Other two referees' comments were completely out of point and, at the same time, very critical. One of them said explicitly that he\she is not an expert and did not understand what is a difference with some another well-known paper in our area. So, the editors should have paid much more attention to the process of choosing referees.
Acta Biologica Hungarica
6.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Science of the Total Environment
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The handling editor clearly articulated the reason of the rejection: "This work does appear to be of a high quality and is interesting but is outside the current scope of the journal."

I appreciate the editor's super fast decision.
Science of the Total Environment
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The communication was fast. The reviewer concentrated only on the weaknesses of the study (I mean the speculative part of the dscussion) and did not take attention to the other, well substantiated mertits. Despite the final decision was reject, I think the review and the editorial handling was fair.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
4.6 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
PLoS ONE
38.7 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: We sent our work to PLOS One because it is supposed to provide high-quality, fast reviews. We asked every couple of months, and the paper, at least up to the 6th month, did not have an assigned editor yet. We finally got the reviews after 8 months, with one reviewer advising acceptance and one reviewer rejection, and got an outright rejection. I believe that we should have gotten a third review, and that the two reviews we got are not high quality and were not fast. Overall, a disappointing (and slow) experience.
Neuron
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Neuroscience
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer's comments were fair and largely in agreement with each other. They highlighted results in our study that bore too much similarity to earlier research, and that the novel aspects of our study were underexplored.
ACS Catalysis
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The first reviewer accepted with major revision, while the second one rejected with mentioning that "Although the study appears to have been done well, I do not believe it adds much new insight into the field"
Pattern Recognition Letters
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: Excellent Journal for rapid publication and quality review process.
IET Image Processing
6.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took around 3 months from my first submission till the final acceptance. Comments from the 2 reviewers are genuine and closely relating to the content of the manuscript. One of the reviewers has asked me to perform more experimentation. The revised article is accepted in 15 days. The e-article is made available immediately upon the acceptance.
I was completely satisfied throughout the process.
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
0.0 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
2.0 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
3.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
7.6 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Environmental Modelling and Software
35.7 weeks
35.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was excellent, increasing the manuscript quality a lot. However the overall review process was too long.
Local Environment
11.0 weeks
38.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: While the whole submission process took over a year this was partially due to my own delays in resubmission. The final journal article hardly resembles the initial article at all, and was dramatically improved as a result of the feedback from reviewers.