Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience
7.4 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers suggestions were improved the quality of the paper.
BMC Public Health
12.3 weeks
34.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
Motivation: Nothing positive.
1. Long process (8 months in total).
2. Limited communication from journal about status or any issues connected with submission.
3. Resubmission was with BMC for 5 months before final decision, and this appears only to have happened because I had to send 3 e-mails to find out what was happening.
4. The reason for final rejection was debatable (paper did not conform to requirements) and in stark contradiction to the editorial office's previous actions (sent out twice for peer review; resubmission requested). If the paper did not conform, why was this not made clear at the start?
5. The apology for this whole process taking 8 months was scant and formulaic.
Scientific Reports
18.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: After two time revision my paper was accepted
Journal of Building Performance Simulation
12.6 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process is fast and well handled by the editor.
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
7.4 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was very responsive and he processed all necessary things in a due manner. One external reviewer provided very constructive and details comments. However, the other reviewer did not provide quality comments.
Party Politics
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Swift handling. Relevant reviewers were selected.
Waste Management
7.1 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: There were four reviewers for the 1st round of revision, and then one reviewer for the second round. The journal handled the review process effectively.
Journal of Heuristics
101.1 weeks
101.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: My only complain is on the time it took the whole process (2 years)
Biomass and Bioenergy
22.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The peer review process was completed in less than two months, I supposed. However the journal was very slow in delivering the feedbacks to the authors, they waited for another reviewer to return the comments which took forever to respond. It ended up that we received 3 comments including one from the editor which mostly on technical parts. The journal is good, but the way they handle the review process could have been better than that.
Science
20.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: Article was first reviewed by two advisory board members (apart from the editor handling the manuscript). They suggested some changes before it can actually sent out to the external review. After a month, we re-submitted the article and it was sent to two reviewers. One was positive and recommended the article for publication and second reviewer one was too naive (someone who is a direct competitor in the field), and tried to block the article from publication in Science and hence gave very bad rating to the manuscript. Editor decided to reject the manuscript based on second reviewer's comments.

My experience is that once the article is under review, it does not matter that its Science or whichever journal, it's just an ordinary article and one should not expect good detailed comments on the name of journal's reputation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers were competent and provided useful feedback. Time handling of the manuscript was definitely reasonable. Still, the manuscript was rejected based only on some critiques by one of the two reviewers which could have been answered. The other reviewer suggested acceptance with very minor revisions. Also, the editor was clearly not a specialist in the domain, despite the fact that the editorial board of the journal includes prominent scholars in the specific field of the article.
IEEE Latin America Transactions
40.4 weeks
40.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Transactions of the Indian Institute of Metals
37.7 weeks
41.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 608.0 days
Drawn back
Materials Science Forum
0.3 weeks
0.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Key Engineering Materials
19.3 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Scientific Reports
12.9 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Organizational Psychology Review
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: The editor and the reviewers provided a thorough evaluation of our manuscript. Only downside was the long duration of the review process.
Journal of Geometric Analysis
39.5 weeks
39.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
PLoS ONE
16.6 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: After a month of back and forth on quality control issues manuscript supposedly went to review. Another two months went by without change so I provided more reviewer names. This process transpired two more times until I heard they have reviews but no academic editor. I met an associate editor at the journal’s booth at a major conference after 5 months of no decision who actually informed me of the reviews and that they were good. Some more academic editor suggestions to this associate editor for another two months led to total complete belief of incompetence and eventual withdrawal. The day after the withdrawal I was informed by this associate editor that the reviews are especially good to the extent that I should resubmit. I resubmitted with hopes an actual academic editor would accept the responsibility to be handler and make a first decision off those previous two reviewers. The day after resubmitting I received the previous reviewers which were good! With hopes an academic editor would pick it up soon I waited 1.5 months. Finally I receive a decision, major revision, with different reviews. I took 1.5 months to revise. Within 10 days of resubmission received an acceptance after 9 months!
Building and Environment
4.7 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was seriously and fast handled by the editor. One reviewer provided a careful revision of the manuscript with a lot of constructive remarks that improved the manuscript.
Scientific Reports
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Process as advertised. Quick, well informed reviewers and professional handling. We tried to give as much support as possible at the initial submission by suggesting several reviewers. We had the feeling that this helped a lot.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
24.0 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Rejected
Motivation: Paper was sent out for review quite fast. We received two review reports from external reviewers and a third one from an associate editor. Although the response was negative, all comments were very professional, well informed and fair. Definitely one of the best journals in the field of agricultural economics. However handling time could be faster. Waiting half a year for two review reports seems too long.
Nonlinear Dynamics
19.7 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The submission of the paper was handled in a very efficient way by the editor.
The overall process of review was quick and constructive.
Reviewers' comments denoted a high knowledge of the subject and they certainly improved the manuscript.
Advanced Functional Materials
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
0
Rejected
Applied Energy
11.6 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process is quite fast. However, the comments from one reviewer were really poor technically and not constructive. The Editor also asked to add more references to provide a wider state of the art review.
Applied Energy
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was handled fast. The reviewers provided a list of interesting remarks for a major revision. However, the editor estimate that the article was not in the topic of the journal.
Global Food Security
16.9 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was very efficient in handling the submission of the paper. The quality of the reviewers' reports was mixed: one was very constructive and detailed while the other was more superficial.
Transport in Porous Media
12.3 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Another good experience with this journal. The reviewers were constructive and provided important remarks that improved the manuscript. The whole process is well and fast handled by the editor.
Biblische Notizen
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process didn't take long time and I found it helpful that the editor shared with me the reviewer's report in its entirety. The reviewer had some helpful suggestions (some not) and caught some errors. The copy-editing seemed of very basic kind (if any).
BMC Genomics
9.4 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I think it was good to submit to BMC Genomics. The editor had a quick response.
Reviewer 1 just said our paper is OK to publish. Reviewer 2 gave us 6 comments, which were positive and constructive.
Archiv für Papyrusforschung und Verwandte Gebiete
Immediately accepted after 50.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: When I first sent the article, I received helpful preliminary feedback from the journal editor, but for some reason my article was not then forwarded to the editorial board for review. I only found out about this 8 months later when I enquired the editor about the matter. I received due apology and the subsequent review process was relatively swift and, as ever, courteous.
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The journal does not send its submission to external reviewers, most of the time not even to other members of the editorial board: the article is reviewed by the person you send it to. This can actually work fine, provided that the editor informs the author concerning the editorial decision and the reasons behind it!
Acta Arithmetica
39.1 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process went smoothly and the referee report was very helpful and encouraging, but the procees took a very long time.
Nature Materials
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nonlinear Dynamics
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were not expert in the field of the paper and their comments were meaningless and some of them were theoritically incorrect. Generally, the reviwers' comments did not contain helpful information and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
28.2 weeks
28.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Post-Communist Economies
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: At the time of writing the paper was tailored to the scope and interests of Post-Communist Economies so it was kind of a shock to read the editor's decision about desk rejection.The justification was that it was not interesting to their readers.