Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Complaining about ms being a case study of single species.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Complaining about ms being a case study of single species
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Manuscript was sent out for review very quickly. Final decision by the editor took rather long in comparison once the reviews were in.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor should have sent out the paper for review as a similar paper had been published in PNAS last year and we had much better results than the method.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.4 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.4 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
3.0 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
0.0 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I have nothing bad to say about this journal in my experience. This is the most professional contact I've ever had with a journal, and the fasted turnaround. The time from submission to (advanced online) publication was 4 months!
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: The response time was very good.
However, reviewers' comments were incorrect (either scientifically or in the context of the manuscript).
18.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: The review took very long time for first decision.
3.7 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
4.1 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
3
Accepted
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor wrote that the manuscriot was not appropiate for the journal readership even if I cited a lot of papers from the journal of the same topic.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There was a large number of received submissions
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers do not give important guidelines, they just wrote that the novelty was not important.
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.4 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process was very slow.
n/a
n/a
60 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
14.6 weeks
23.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: First round of the review process took a bit long but overall the reviewers provided constructive and helpful feedback.
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
10.8 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very tough comments from 4 reviewers.
The best experience I ever had with a journal's editorial staff!
Excellent final editing. They replicated all my analyses!
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I don't think that somebody actually read our manuscript before rejecting it as we received a manuscript number (which usually means that an editor was assigned) just 2 minutes before the rejection. In addition, 3 weeks for an immediate rejection is simply too long.
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were good. There were only some editorial suggestions.
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: Review from an economist who admitted s/he was not familiar with the philosophical issues. His/her only real substantive complaint boiled down to my paper not looking 'formal enough'. Review was full of misunderstandings about the philosophical motivation of my project (in fact, the reviewer at one point claimed my thesis was 'p', when it in fact was 'not p'). I really don't know why an editor would take such a review seriously. I won't be submitting to this journal for a long time.
25.0 weeks
51.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Good analysis, but limited understanding of the relation with the existing literature
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Relatively well argumented desk rejection
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There were two different papers submitted. In both cases the time the editors took was about 3 weeks.
In my opinion this is a bit too much time for "immidiate" rejection of a 4 pages letter.
16.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
12.6 weeks
56.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected