Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Angewandte Chemie
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
8.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers in my opinion did not even try to understand the concept of the study. The authors tried their best. Added more explanations where ever asked. But the reviewers made lame reviews in the end targeting english proficiency of the first author. The first author is a native english speaker. The manuscript was still sent to a language expert and they found the english absolutely fine. After wasting approximately 4 months the journal rejected the paper without giving detailed reasons. Therefore to conclude, they could neither find competent reviewers and neither helped the authors when the reviewers were not doing a satisfactory job. Pathetic experience!
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
19.0 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The first turn-around time was a bit long, but once I revised the paper, the editor accepted the paper without sending it back to the reviewers. That certainly expedited the process.
Journal of Virology
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fair and rapid peer-review process.
Advanced Healthcare Materials
8.1 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The process took longer than I expected. Although the reviewers did not seem experts in the field, their comments were reasonable.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Genome Biology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Angewandte Chemie
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Ultramicroscopy
38.7 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: While the manuscript was ultimately accepted, there were lengthy delays and gaps in communication (months long) during which time no communication was received from the editorial staff, despite repeated contact attempts. Only one brief review was received prior to acceptance. Editorial staff was apologetic about the delays, but improvements are very much needed in their review processes.
Mitochondrion
3.0 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: My paper was handled very professionally and the reviewers' comments were very helpful. However, the time period between submission of revisions and acceptance was too long.
Synlett
3.7 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Ecography
13.1 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Our experience from first submission through both sets of revisions was a very positive one. Both referees clearly spent considerable time on the reviews, and provided reports of high quality and detail that helped us greatly in reworking certain sections of the paper. The handling time was quite lengthy, but this was not surprising given the complexity of the manuscript, and the editorial team did a fine job in handling the paper and responding to queries in a timely fashion.
Language and Speech
3.3 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were extremely helpful at every stage of the reviewing process. We actually learned a lot through this process. The only negative aspect was that the associate editor took 2 weeks to make a decision after the reviewers are in; the editor also took about a week after receiving the AE report. It slowed down the whole process a bit.
International Journal of Human Resource Management
54.9 weeks
88.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews took more than 12 months. After the twelve months, we received two reviews: one was a one-sentence review, the other one was one paragraph touching on issues remotely related to the topic of the manuscript. We resubmitted the manuscript and had to wait another six months for the next review: A new reviewer whose review consisted of half a page of editorial and style advice, again nothing regarding the substance of our manuscript.

One rater on this page attributes the long waiting times to the death of a previous editor (which to my knowledge was in 2012 or 2013) and new editors taking over, but note that we submitted our manuscript years after that period.
Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics
9.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I understand journals struggle to find reviewers. Our paper was very straightforward and therefore the editorial team + one reviewer was acceptable, but as such 2 or more reviews is better. However, the editor assigned to us was able to grasp the intricacies of our response to reviewers and followed the science while accepting our revisions.
Feminist Economics
25.7 weeks
65.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, I think the quality of the reviews were very high, but unfortunately the last review round (in which we only needed to make some editorial changes) took over six months.
Electronics Letters
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Accepted
Government Information Quarterly
13.9 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The overall process was really fine.
The first review round took longer than we had wished for because the second reviewer did neither accept nor decline the invitation and thus nothing happend for three months. We kindly asked the journal to remind the reviewer again, which then sped up the process a bit.
We could not change the corresponding author. Only the corresponding auhtor can see any information on the process online and will receive the reviews from the editor. That is totally impractical as our corresponding author was not available all the time due to medical issues. This should have been handled better by the editor.
The reviews were well written and fair, we managed to adress all points. The second review round only included one minor request - the editor accepted the manuscript two days later. Overall it was a good process.
International Journal of Consumer Studies
18.3 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Cleaner Production
7.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The overall review process was very efficient and the review reports were very constructive.
Scientific Reports
6.4 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Good 1: The first decision was made in one month after assigning a tracking number.
Good 2: Comments and criticism were fair.
Bad 1: Quality check. It took a long time before sending to editor.
Bad 2: Unexpected delay after revised manuscript submission.
Child Abuse and Neglect
9.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews was good and greatly improved the paper. The second round of reviews was also helpful. After an initial long wait for the first decision the process got a lot speedier. However, I felt that one reviewer and one of the editors were asking me to re-frame results in a way that was not supported by evidence, which took a number of minor revisions and rebuttal letters to agree on.
Journal of Rural Studies
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Although the editor sent the paper for review promptly, and I got notification the reviews were completed a month after submission, I only got a response from the editor when I sent a prompt to him 2 mths later. In other words the editor sat on the reviews for 2 mths with no action.
Acta Psychologica
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Overall, reviews weren't very negative but manuscript was still rejected. Comparably fast process though.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
4.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and precise revisions, and rapid handling by the Editorial team
American Journal of Gastroenterology
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: I do not understand why the Editors send the papers to reviewers if they think that an article does not have anyway enough priority for the journal, waisting Authors and Reviewers time.
Nature Genetics
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Annals of Neurology
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cortex
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Decision time for immediate rejection was really short wherefore one cannot expect more than a stereotypical rejection letter.
Foreign Policy Analysis
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
PNAS
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was desk rejected with zero indication given that they had actually bothered to read it. They unhelpfully suggested to resubmit to journals specialising in fields that have little to do with our work. A waste of our time, in other words.
Geophysical Research Letters
12.1 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: It took a while, but I got good reviews that were very helpful. I would like to point out, however, that the turnaround time listed on the GRL website is based on manipulation of the submission times. My manuscript required only minor revision (took me less than one day), but the journal demanded that I fully resubmitted the revisions, meaning that the clock was reset. Consequently, the it appears on the website that it took only 8 weeks from submission to the published paper appearing online.
Hematology
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Infection
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick response, encouraging us to pursue a more fitting journal for our paper
PLoS ONE
2.7 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process was quick, the reviewers were focused and their remarks contributed to the paper.
The communication with the editor was very swift and pleasant.
Nature
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejection without review in Nature is now shame. However, after 10 days of editorial evaluation I would appreciate at least a brief comment on my manuscript.
Netherlands Journal of Medicine
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the reason for rejection was not entirely accurate, the fast time to first decision is good
Netherlands Journal of Medicine
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection time for case reports
Spinal Cord Series and Cases
5.3 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reasonably fast review process.
Reasonable comments by reviewer.