Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
15.7 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were helpful and fast, with two rounds taking only ~4-5 weeks total. We had the paper for two weeks for revision. The remainder, ~5.5 months, was dragged out by poor editorial handling. We waited >1 month before an editor and reviewers were found.

As an example of the poor editorial handling, the editorial office told us (because we complained about the slowness) that the second round of reviews had been completed, yet our status remained "under review" for 3 weeks afterward instead of "required reviews complete" or "awaiting editorial decision". And no further revisions were requested by reviewers, so the editor had no excuse to wait that length of time.

Publication production was very fast, taking only a week from formal acceptance to online publication.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision making was too slow, and their comments were nothing but useless one.
6.6 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: I have the feeling that if I hadn't asked for the status of our manuscript (after correcting everything the reviewers told us and sending it back), the paper would still be waiting the final decision.
19.0 weeks
19.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
11.7 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial assistant, Jenny Abarbanel, was consistently prompt and helpful. Reviewer comments were high-quality and contributed to the paper. Bruce Hoffman, the editor in chief, was also extremely prompt in all his communications. I highly recommend submitting your manuscript to this journal - they are communicative and timely where other journals are often unresponsive, slow, and unhelpful.
3.7 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The durations of the reviews were less than 4 weeks, so it is relatively fast. The comments of two reviewers were rigorous and helpful for the improvement of my manuscript, so we revised our paper twice. We extended the revision time once, and the editor was easy to communicate.
12.7 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Immediately accepted after 14.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
17.4 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Long turn around time. Third reviewer (not involved in initial reviews) gave a very emotive review.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
20.6 weeks
24.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall good handling and high quality reviews.
First review round took quite long.
15.4 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were timely and very useful. Editorial decision-making was efficient and clear. I recommend this journal for a positive experience of publication process. .
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: overall handling was good. the quality of the reviews was average.
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
19.1 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
10.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very speedy. Still, the reports clearly showed that both the editorial staff and the the evaluators have gone over the text carefully. Feedback was very constructive, with clear reasons for rejection and recommendations for improvement.
8.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
7.6 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
2.4 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is extremly fast. Everything is managed via email instead of a publication system, which I found very comfortable. Very nice is also that the corresponding author gets via email notice when the reviewers are informed about the paper.
34.7 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I do not have any complaining about the speed of the journal. However I am not able to apreciate the reasons for the rejection. Journals, like Plos One, claim that they are not interested in percieved impact. But in my expreience they do, (somewhere in the deep). My manuscript was about genome-wide identification of an enzyme family in a group of single-celled eukaryotes. Editor thinks that blasting for the presence or absence of genes from publicly avaible data is not a primary scientific research (a criterion for publication with PlosONE). But I can show countless number of these kind of studies. Even one published in Plos One. He also found my phylogenetic analyses limited. This sounds to me that editor seeks an impact. Therefore, Plos One and that kind of journals should stop involving the name of Academic Editor in the accepted manuscript. Some "arrogant" editors do not want to be part of a nonimpactful paper. That is my theory.
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: The reason for the gap between initial submission and external review was that the manuscript was under "Editorial Board Consideration" for nearly three months. Several (4) emails to the editorial office during this time got the simple reply that it was not possible to find an editor because they were all in the field or on holidays (literally). We send the fifth email as a letter of formal complaint to the Editor-In-Chief. We had an editor assigned within a week and the paper was sent immediately after for external review (only to 1 reviewer). I as leading author am not bothered with the review itself but with the rather poor handling of the manuscript by the editorial office.
Immediately accepted after 10.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
24.6 weeks
24.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Drawn back
Motivation: We doubt that this manuscript was carefully reviewed because in only one review that we have received, only a few minor changes that could be easily corrected were suggested. Also, by his comments the reviewer showed a lack of understanding and knowing about the topic of the manuscript. Furthermore, the editor did not write any valid explanation of the rejection although the reviewer commented that results were interesting, and certainly did not suggest rejection of the manuscript. After so long a period of waiting we consider this kind of treatment to be unfair at least.
9.0 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript submission was relatively simple and we received the first round of reviews in just over 2 months. The reviews were constructive and fair, and the manuscript was improved in quality after resubmission. The handling of the manuscript seemed prompt, fair, and diligent. Overall, I had a positive experience with ERL.
9.7 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: This journal has a very swift editorial policy and manuscripts are rapidly sent out for review, and editorial decisions are taken fast. Still, he editors carefully study the review reports and do not only automatically forward them to the authors: This is very helpful and shows a high quality of the editorial work at Powder Technology. I suggest that the other Elsevier journals would adopt this policy, because many of them would have a lot to learn from it.
7.4 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: They had a hard time finding a handling editor. But once they found one, she dealt with it amazingly fast, within 2 weeks.
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: I wish I wanted an opinion from more than one review. My general impression of this journal is that the editor(s) rely too much on reviewers' comments, not making their own decisions.
30.6 weeks
57.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was OK but the journal response on the reviews was slow (manuscript hanging more than one month at the editorial office for each decision) and editors started their own review process after the real reviewers had done their job, focusing on technical matters. The associate editor also made a mistake and incorrectly studied our initial submission after the first revision round, and commented matters that were not relevant to the revised paper. Pointing out this mistake was obviously something we should never have done as the journal and is action is flawless. Eventually, the paper was however accepted.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: On a positive side - the feedback was quite quick. On a negative side - I had a feeling that the editor didn't read the text carefully.
n/a
n/a
86 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Disappointing to receive a desk rejection more than 12 weeks after submission.
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fair and fast. The suggestions by the Reviewers was of high quality.
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Rejected
Motivation: The decision letter was written in a more personal tone instead of objective criticism.