Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Apicultural Research
52.9 weeks
53.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Urban Ecosystems
27.3 weeks
41.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Epigenomics
5.7 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Neuropsychopharmacology
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The internal editorial screening process was very quick and efficient. The manuscript was rejected but we have no complaint.
Science and Public Policy
18.7 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively speedy and efficient overall process, thorough and helpful review. Overall a very good experience and competent handling of manuscript by the editorial team.
Knowledge and Information Systems
12.7 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The overall review reports were excellent in terms of their quality. Particularly, one reviewer's comments were very specific and constructive, so they contributed to the improvement of the manuscript significantly. However, other reviewers provided us with some unspecific, generic comments and suggestions. The overall editorial process was very smooth although it was not that quick.
Avian Conservation and Ecology
10.8 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: A rather solid 2 rounds of reviews mainly from the EiC was different but in the end(5 months) it was accepted
Asia Pacific Journal of Education
72.0 weeks
143.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: In the overall, the editorial office was responsive and friendly. However, the (associate) editors processed our manuscript very slowly. In particular, they have not made a decision even all review reports were submitted to them; I had contact the editorial office regularly to make updates.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
11.1 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Phonology
20.3 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I was deeply impressed by how quickly and smoothly this was handled. The reviews were extremely rigorous, and while they required a huge reworking of the paper to address, they were still very encouraging. The editors were very transparent and prompt in communications, and said that the revision would go to the Associate Editor, who would either approve it or send it back to the reviewers; I appreciated this level of communication about the process. The time between acceptance and assignment to a volume for publication was shorter than I would have expected.
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
6.0 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Science and Public Policy
21.6 weeks
31.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were fair and the handling of the manuscript by the editor(s) also fair and professional. But the long time that this process took was surprising given my previous experiences with this journal, and this was not only due to slow reviewers – from what i could read in the online submission system it took over a month before the manuscript was even sent out to reviewers. This was a bit disappointing, but perhaps understandable: I can only guess that a significantly increased volume of manuscripts submitted to this journal has slowed down the review process. The journal continues to be a role model in handling of manuscripts and quality of reviewers, but the time lag has lowered its esteem in my view.
Heliyon
2.6 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review comments were fair and relevant on our case. The journal process was efficient. Reviewing proofs using SkyLaTeX was particularly pleasant.
Journal of Medical Internet Research
12.4 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Immediately accepted after 16.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: Very slow handling of the manuscript with poor feedback. Very long time to decision for a letter to the editor manuscript (much long than the journal's average time to first decision)
Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica
Immediately accepted after 16.9 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Infection
2.7 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review and publication process with a good level commentaries on review
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.