Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Biomedicines
2.0 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
3
Accepted
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
4.7 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
mBio
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No reason given for the rejection: the editor only said that the manuscript was not appropriate for the journal. This is somewhat unconvincing because the topic of the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal, and they have published papers with similar aims and methodologies.
ISME Journal
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision was based on the manuscript not being fit for the journal. The editor gave good reasons for this decision, even though he praised the quality of the study,
Environmental Microbiology
6.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Archiv für Papyrusforschung und Verwandte Gebiete
Immediately accepted after 6.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I have received excellent detailed feedback from the editor I contacted and from another member of the editorial team of the journal, which improved my piece greatly. Since then, I have published another article with them, with a similar experience.
Biomaterials
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cell Reports
2.6 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The handling editor was extremely fast. The reviewers were very knowledgeable of the topic, and although the experiments for the revision were very demanding, they accepted that we could only do some of them, and accepted the paper after the first revision. In addition, the status of the paper was very clear on the editorial manager, such that we knew one day before the official e-mail from the journal that the paper was being sent out for review. Moreover, the proofs were fast and looked amazing. It was overall a very good experience.
International Communication Gazette
26.0 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The professionalism of the editor is obvious. The editor does a great job of sending out papers to reviewers. The reviewers seem to demonstrate the international angle that the journal's title indicates. The reviews were helpful in improving the paper.
BMJ Open
4.3 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
European Journal of Epidemiology
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Clinical Oncology
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Oncotarget
4.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
European Respiratory Review
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Public Opinion Research
20.3 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers offered precise comments, and suggested many changes to the paper.
Respirology
7.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: Quality communication, thorough feedback, all round good experience.
Frontiers in Immunology
2.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor to whom I submitted my article (via email - there is no online submission system) responded to confirm receipt promptly and informed me that the review process may take some time. Two months later, I received notification of acceptance, with two reviews: one by the editor to whom I submitted the article, and another by an external reviewer. The reviews were not anonymous: names were present in the comments. Suggestions for improvement (which were mostly minor) were genuinely helpful and resulted in an improved final product. The entire process was very professional and cordial.
Acta Politica
33.9 weeks
40.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Overall an OK, but rather slow, experience.
Science of the Total Environment
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: In spite of the unfavorable outcome I appreciate the very fast editorial processing.
Acta Sociologica
18.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Dyes and Pigments
2.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews came back within two weeks of submitting. One reviewer rejected the manuscript because we had made 'too many assumptions' in modelling our data, but did not specify what does assumptions were. The second reviewer suggested several model that we may use to analyse some of our data, which I found very useful.
Lab on a Chip
2.3 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was extremely fast. The reviews were very positive and asked only for very minor changes to the manuscript.
Macromolecules
4.3 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and the comments were easy to implement.
PNAS
5.6 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were reasonably fast and the comments were useful. I was overall very satisfied with submitting to this journal.
Soft Matter
2.9 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Soft Matter
3.9 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quick and the comments made by the reviewers helped us improve the manuscript.
Journal of Surfactants and Detergents
15.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The submission process was easy and the technical editor was very helpful and fast. The manuscript was sent for review soon after submission. Almost four months after submitting we got a single review (just three sentences) rejecting the manuscript. I felt that the quality was substandard, and it seemed like the reviewer probably only read the manuscript superficially.
Advanced Energy Materials
2.3 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is very quick and helpful to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Cretaceous Research
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Geosciences Journal
8.1 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
eNeuro
3.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review was fast. The reviewers' comments were insightful and helpful.
Soft Matter
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: While our manuscript was rejected, both editors and reviewers were reasonably fair and balanced, and suggested an alternative journal for publication. The manuscript was quickly accepted after transferring to another journal. Communication was quick and so was the review process.
Resources Policy
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Empirical Economics
78.0 weeks
111.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: The paper was simply not forwarded for months. After a year we had to ask twice until we got an answer and the paper was forwarded to reviewers.
Circulation
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: Only one reviewer. Many other premier journals in this field supplies review comments from 3 reviewers. Extremely poor review of a reviewer that had clearly not given the paper the attention submissions to a premier journal such as Circulation deserves. Unclear reasons for rejection. Long time to first decision, which was supplied only after asking about the status of our submission.