Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Terra Nova
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Drawn back
Journal of Differential Geometry
20.6 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Rejected
Motivation: Taking nearly 6 months to reject a paper without even a referee report seems ridiculous to me.
Mathematische Annalen
25.1 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
Geometric and Functional Analysis
2.3 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Rejected
Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik
38.9 weeks
38.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
International Mathematics Research Notices
10.6 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
4
Accepted
Manuscripta Mathematica
17.6 weeks
29.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Central European Journal of Mathematics
15.3 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Rejected
Journal of Algebraic Geometry
1.7 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
4
Rejected
Mathematische Annalen
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology
5.9 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Takes a bit of time from submission to allocation of manuscript number but very quick review and response
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
18.4 weeks
26.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: Review process took too long. Second round was not needed. Editor should have been able to make decision with our response to the first round.
Antiquity
13.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was relatively quick (although it missed the editor's target of 2 months by 50%). Once the article was accepted it awaited publication for another 11 months.
Biomaterials
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer comments were pertinent, well-documented and demonstrated good knowledge of the field.
PLoS ONE
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer critiques were extensive and well-documented. Reviewer feedback was useful in significantly revising and restructuring our manuscript before resubmission elsewhere.
Animal Behaviour
4.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Hormones and Behavior
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Animal Ecology
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Ecology
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Computers in Biology and Medicine
4.1 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Quick reviewing process with nice suggestions of the reviewers in the meantime that have contributed to improve final quality of the work