Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Courteous letter explaining that the editors do not see the article as a good fit for the journal.
n/a
n/a
82 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.9 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Good turnaround times. Always informed, positive and respectful tone.
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
4.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
6.3 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took some time to the editor to look into the manuscript and take a decision. It was expected to get a rejection from PNAS not because the work is not novel rather it was hard to find a suitable editor from the list of NAS members available on their website (who can be a right fit to review the work). Therefore, we suggested the names of few people to act as guest editor, however we think that they did not consider our request.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
0
Rejected
Motivation: While the referee was extremely positive, the editor decided to reject anyway (apparently the article was just not to her taste). This has happened a number of times for the journal and it makes me not want to referee for them - if the editor is going to make a decision that overturns that of the referee anyway, what's the point?
7.6 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
5.9 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
12.6 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Drawn back
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.4 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: a long time to the first decision; the editor decision was reject with the possibility of resubmission, which I consider as a bad practice of some journals to boost their indexes; after two months we resubmitted our revised MS to the same journal and our paper was published
9.0 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: the handling time was fair, the review report was a high quality with many excelent suggestions
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: Judging from the editorial manager system, it already took a month until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Eventually, only one of two submitted a review, the gist of which was that the manuscript is not suited for the journal. Overall I think the whole process took way too long. The editor should have been able to either make a decision about the suitability of the manuscript before sending it out to reviewers, or be more strict about review deadlines. Waiting almost four months for a response just cost us a lot of time that we could have used more efficiently by submitting to another journal.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Rejected
Motivation: Very responsive.
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
9.3 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
20.4 weeks
40.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
18.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were fair, but were very much oriented towards mainstream economiics.
50.9 weeks
50.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The report was useful and very detailed but it took one year
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2.9 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted