Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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 .
Journal of Business Ethics
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Condor
30.4 weeks
32.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: After dropping the ball for seven months the paper came back with good reviews and was accepted after revision. EiC was apologetic about review period but had great comments to improve paper.
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
21.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: it take a lot of time
Cytometry, Part A
9.0 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
5.4 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was relatively swift. The reviewers were fair. The editor handled the paper from first submission to its appearance online very well and communicated with us regularly and clearly.
Conservation Genetics
20.9 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Accepted
Motivation: Considering this was a very straight forward phylogeographic study, it did not require such a long initial time in review. Neither reviewer seemed to be very well informed about basic population genetic concepts. In particular, the lengthy response necessary for the second reviewer was essentially an explanation of simple concepts (isolation by distance, interpretation of structure plots etc). Needless to say this type of review is a waste of time for authors and not a word was changed in the paper.
Conservation Genetics
10.9 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Considering that the paper was a very simple study, the review process was far too long. The reviews did not improve the paper in this case and there was quite a lot of messing around (e.g. we were asked why we hadn't sent back the corrected proofs when we had actually never received these and also we hadn't even heard back whether our final changes/revision were okay). We were asked right at the end to add a few lines in the materials and methods - (post review - so I'm not sure where this came from) but in the end these lines were not included at all.
Molecular Ecology
6.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: During the first round of reviews I had three reviewers; one highly positive, one quite neutral and one extremely negative. The very negative reviewers comments were tough to respond to as they seemed very opinion-based/personal rather than identifying a scientific flaw in my work. The editor provided very balanced advice on how to address the three quite different reviews and gave clear guidance on which points were particularly important to address. Overall this paper improved significantly because of these reviewers and because the editor allowed us the chance to improve it.
Acta Chiropterologica
5.6 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Straightforward submission process. Relatively fast review and response times. Fair reviewal process and editorial decision making. Proofs were created quickly with close personal attention to detail by the editor in chief.
BMC Palliative Care
12.7 weeks
56.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: In general, I am positive about how my manuscript was handled, and the amount and the quality of the reviews received.
A little bit disappointing was the duration of the second review round and duration of the third review round.
Sao Paulo Medical Journal
1.3 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing
38.0 weeks
38.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Phonology
24.1 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The process was slow, but much of the time was due to delay in starting revisions on our part. The first reviews were very mixed: two were extremely positive, and the third was mean and generally unhelpful. The mean review asked for a lot of changes that we didn't think would improve the paper, and many of them are things we were asked to change back during the second round of reviews. Overall, we thought the editors handled the situation extremely well, though, and the paper was much improved as a result.
Psychological Medicine
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The reason for rejection was not clear, although the editor suggested to submit to a specialist journal, hinting the study was too specialist for the journal. However, we appreciated that the response came within a week's time from submission.
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Ecology and Evolution
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
Nature
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Behavioral Ecology
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: Really good reviews that will improve approach if revision for another journal
Biodiversity and Conservation
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Study journal contents before submission
Scientific Reports
16.3 weeks
30.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The Editorial Board and few referees did excellent work for improving the manuscript. This journal is excellent and particularly the editorial board members.
Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics
12.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: The decision seemed really at odds with the content of the reviews. There were some serious flaws in the paper, to be sure, but the suggestion was basically to rewrite it about a different topic, with new data that is not feasible to collect. So, it was a pretty unhelpful rejection.
Chemosphere
n/a
n/a
36 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It should be faster to consider, whether the manuscript would be of interest for journal readers. When writing an e-mail to editors directly from the submission system (asking why the manuscript is still with the editor after 4 weeks), I obtained no response.