Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Sustainability
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: We sent in a paper and we got it back after one round of revision with fairly minor comments. We addressed the comments and resubmitted thinking it was going to be accepted fast.

To our surprise, the second round of review took a lot longer than the first, and the outcome was a rejection motivated by a long review by the editor in which he had a lot of critiques, completely different from those expressed by the two reviewers. Most of what the editor commented on 1) showed he did not understand the paper and/or 2) was relatively trivial staff that could easily have addressed in the revision, had he given his comments to the original submission.

Very weird experience overall. Handling time was decent, at least.
BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care
12.9 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Appetite
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: The editor agreed "with both reviewers that [what we pointed out] only hold for this paper but for many more" but stated that "It seems unfair to specifically target this issue for this paper". When we proposed to write a more general letter to the Editor addressing this common error, the Editor dismissed it as falling "beyond the scope of Appetite". I believe this shows lack of interest for the integrity of the Scientific Method.
Journal of Religion in Africa
69.4 weeks
168.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
0
Rejected
ACS Nano
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was rapid, and the ACS journals do a good job in this regard. However, the Editor has way more power than is ideal. In our case, one of the Reviewers suggested to publish as is and the other, to publish in a different journal. The Editor gave us an option to resubmit within 180 days after answering the second Reviewer's queries, but somehow decided to reject for now.
PNAS
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Ceramics International
2.0 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The handeling of paper was very fast they took only 14 days for the first round
And after resubmission i got the acceptance after 4 hours.
It is a great journal
Journal of Molluscan Studies
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The journal indicates that it is interested in Molluscan physiological papers, but the reasons given for manuscript rejection suggest that the focus is behavioral and ecology. This manuscript was rejected due to the lack of “relevance to field conditions” and “behavior in the field.” Although, I enjoy reading this journal, I would caution physiologist about submitting their manuscripts. On the other hand, behavioral scientist and ecologist would likely benefit from the very fast response times.
Biological Invasions
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Shellfish Research
6.5 weeks
6.5 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was actively involved in the review process. The review comments were helpful for the most part. The editor also carefully considered both the author and reviewers responses. The entire process was relatively quick and straightforward.
American Journal of Public Health
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Preventive Medicine
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Mycological Progress
17.0 weeks
26.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Accepted
Nature Genetics
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
5.7 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Overall the process was smooth, however the single review was a disappointment.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
n/a
n/a
41 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Waiting 41 days to hear that the manuscript did not even pass the first evaluation is shocking. I can accept that the editor feels the manuscript was out of the scope, but if that's the case, surely this can be detected in less than 41 days. This is an unacceptable waste of time for the authors and for the scientific community.
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
6.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
African Affairs
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Desk rejects are always disappointing, but they provided a paragraph to state the reasons and suggested which kind of journals they think are more suited.
BMC Veterinary Research
26.0 weeks
49.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Rejected
Fungal Diversity
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Acoustical Science and Technology
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: It was "accept as is".
Nucleic Acids Research
4.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Journal of Bacteriology
4.1 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Scientific Reports
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
BBA General Subjects
n/a
n/a
29 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Plant and Soil
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
PLoS ONE
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Microbial Ecology
8.4 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Phytochemistry
5.4 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Accepted
Mycological Progress
4.6 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
ISME Journal
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Environmental Microbiology
6.1 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Acoustical Science and Technology
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: They returned the decision letter very quickly. The decision letter made it very clear which points need to be fixed, and which points can be ignored.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
10.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The submission was for Express Letters category. I am disappointed that the decision was reject, but the reviews were fair. I revised the paper for a different journal which is more descriptively oriented, and it was eventually accepted.
Ecology Letters
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The answer came exactly three hours after submission
ISME Journal
7.4 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Molecular Ecology
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Medicine
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process is fast. Even though the manuscript is rejected by editors directly, the response from the editor is quite reasonable and convincing.
Nature Communications
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: The review process is quite long. The editor decided to send out the manuscript for review after two weeks upon initial submission. We received the comments from reviewers 8 weeks later. It seems that the whole process is time consuming and the manuscript tracking system is clumsy.