Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Physiotherapy
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 35.0 days
Drawn back
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Dendrochronologia
6.6 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Some non-overlapping reviewers, and of varying quality of reports, but the editor and staff were all professional and supportive through the process.
Experimental and Applied Acarology
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
7.9 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies
12.7 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer and editor-in-chief are friendly even though the waiting time is a bit long, but I think it's effective
Nature Ecology and Evolution
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
3
Rejected
Motivation: We submitted an interdisciplinary manuscript to this journal. The editors sent our manuscript to four reviewers to cover all areas presented in the manuscript. Three reviewers raised minor issues and one reviewer suggested rejection. The latter reviewer stated that the reviewer has lots of experience in the field and they do not want the field to move in the direction we proposed. They did not provide any critics about the results, methods, or conclusions we made. The editor followed the advise of the reviewer suggesting rejection, and the editor recommended us to radically rethink our work. This journal publishes very good quality manuscripts but after this submission, it became clear that this is not a place for publishing work that propose new concepts.
Physical Review Letters
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science Bulletin
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Forum of Mathematics, Sigma
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Communications in Mathematical Physics
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
New Journal of Physics
8.4 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Humor
17.9 weeks
35.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Physical Review Letters
6.1 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Journal of Climate
7.0 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough peer review by people with obvious knowledge of the subject, yet the reviews were timely. The editor was professional and no additional correspondence required. Communications with production/technical/billing were all smooth.
Systèmes d'Information et Management
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Very rapid review process with two well-reasoned reviews. Although disappointed with the result, I cannot fault the process.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
American Journal of Political Science
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
IEEE Access
3.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very smooth. I liked the reviewers' reports as they helped to improve the manuscript.
Bone and Joint Journal
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Took too much time (almost two months) from revision to acceptance of which the manuscript was 'with editor' for more than a month.
Child Abuse and Neglect
7.1 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The journal has improved response time significantly - now in par with what one would expect - even recieved proofs same day as acceptance
PLoS ONE
26.0 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
8.1 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was speedy and the manuscript was sent to three reviewers over two rounds which overall greatly improved its quality. The editor handled the manuscript in a timely manner.
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: My experience submitting my manuscript to the Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools was excellent. Reviews were received in a timely manner, and the feedback was thoughtful, well considered, and added value. The Editor responded very quickly at each stage and provided feedback and support to ensure the process was smooth, professional, and of high quality.
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools
2.5 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was incredibly clear, kind, prompt, and helpful in her responses. Her grace and understanding were especially appreciated, as this was the first article I have ever submitted.
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
6.0 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Everyone involved -- editor, reviewers, journal staff -- was professional and helpful. The reviews showed that the reviewers had read the manuscript and looked at the submitted materials carefully; the reviews provided helpful ideas. The editor guided us through the process smoothly. Several times I had to ask the journal's staff for help; I got help quickly. Start to finish (submission to publication of the copyedited version) took just 11 weeks. I was impressed.
Geophysical Research Letters
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Communications Earth and Environment
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Sociological Methodology
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Too niche apparently, but reviews that helped improve the manuscript for the next journal.
Journal of Pragmatics
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Epidemiology
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Contemporary European Studies
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review reports came within a reasonable time frame. Moreover, the quality of reviews was very high. The reviewers were critical and constructive. This was a positive surprise, because the same manuscript had not received meaningful reviews with another journal in the same field.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
6.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: My experience with the submission process was very good and it did not take long for my article to publish as well, i believe that as long as the material is good in the paper, their is novelty, the language is correct, then the journal will accept the article. although it might take some time in the review process as it still depends on if the reviewers are available.
Energy
12.3 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: It was a relatively normal review process. The handling editor wrote many comments on his own, doing almost his own review report, which was a bit weird, but fine. Overall an average good review process.
iScience
3.0 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
6 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: 6 simultaneous reviews was hard work but the first round of comments were very good
BMJ Open
11.4 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Group and Organization Management
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers gave detailed comments to improve the manuscript and identified theoretical problems with the current manuscript.
Central European Geology
7.4 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were constructive and helpful. The assiatant editor was also helpful. A weak point is the on-line manuscript handling system of this journal which is not a user-friendly system.
Land
2.6 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: I communicated with the section managing editor and the assistant editor in the manuscript handling process. Both were helpful and responsive. At the initial on-line publication of the paper they used the original supplementary table instead of the revised verion however they replaced it immediately after I requested the replacement with the revised version.