Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Neuroscience Letters
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: While there was no constructive feedback provided, I'd sooner receive the rejection decision early at editorial level and avoid the possibility of months under peer review before finally reaching a decision.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: took too long to get desk rejection. They said it was because they were busy.
Genome Biology
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: quick rejection
Disasters
n/a
n/a
61 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 2 months for a desk reject is unacceptably long, a career killer for junior scholars.
International Affairs
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It was a quick and friendly desk reject.
SAGE Open
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I sent to Sage Open on 28th January 2024, but it rejected on 31th January, 2024 without any reason. They rejected me so fast
Reaction Chemistry and Engineering
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Risk Analysis
9.7 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was handled in a timely manner and the reviewer quality was good! Comments by the reviewer helped me to further improve my manuscript.
Kyklos
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The process was very timely which is a plus. The first reviewer seemed like an expert and offered feedback to improve the paper and resubmit. This feedback was detailed with the inclusion of several previous publication for consideration and guidance on how to improve the paper. The second review seemed to have skimmed the paper and provided feedback that indicated that the paper was not thoroughly read or understood. As such, it led to comments that had no basis and reflects the reviewers lack of knowledge with the subject area.

The editor advised us to resubmit but given the poor quality of the second reviewers comments, we took all of the first reviewers comments under consideration and resubmitted to a different journal.
International Organization
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were quick, friendly and of high quality. I'm sure I could have addressed them. Pitty the journal directly rejected the paper.
International Affairs
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Very friendly and supportive reviewer comments despite the reject, and the editor always kept me in the loop about the review progress. Excellent communication from the journal.
Vietnam Journal of Computer Science
12.3 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
International Studies Quarterly
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie
7.0 weeks
24.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Life
3.3 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: This was a resubmission from a paper that was originally rejected (revise and resubmit). The paper was revised and resubmitted and ultimately accepted.
Algal Research
4.3 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Handling of the manuscript went smoothly, reviewers provided an insightful, useful review.
Catalysis Communications
3.7 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Diversity & Inclusion Research
23.7 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
3
Rejected
Motivation: It took quite a while to get three very brief reviews with rather generic feedback. I don't envy the editors to make a decision on that basis.
Accounting Forum
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 35.0 days
Drawn back
AIMS Neuroscience
7.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
5.6 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
SIAM Journal on Computing
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Tribology Letters
8.3 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: One of the best journals in this field. The process was overall smooth.
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid
11.6 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review reports are of good quality overall speaking, and the review process took moderate time length.
Journal of Adolescence
8.6 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor handled our manuscript professionally. Comments from the reviewers are very helpful in strengthening the manuscript.
Educational Review
8.9 weeks
33.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, I was pleased with the process and outcome. Great and personable editor!
Environmental Pollution
3.1 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast, fair comments. The editor also provided useful comments on the manuscript, and made a very fast decision.
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias
Immediately accepted after 11.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Obstetrics and Gynecology
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Environmental Earth Sciences
3.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was professional and the reviewer was shown to extract errors in the manuscript.
Artificial Intelligence
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Forces
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Communications in Mathematical Physics
23.1 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: smooth and fast process with high-quality reports
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
24.0 weeks
53.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
European Eating Disorders Review
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Computers in Biology and Medicine
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editor did not give any comment, fully referring to the reviewers, and did not even sign by name. The reviews were not very critical, but the manuscript was rejected outright. On the positive side, the process was very fast.
The Lancet Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
The BMJ
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales
18.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The swift communication from editors facilitates a smooth publication journey, while the detailed and relevant feedback from expert reviewers enhances the scholarly value of each article.