Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Biogeography
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Pest Management Science
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The comments received from reviewers were mostly helpful, but the reason for the rejection (instead of revise and resubmit) was not given.
Astrophysical Journal
6.9 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research
2.4 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Philosophy of Science
13.4 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Lubrication Science
47.7 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Accepted
Motivation: I got my manuscript accepted without any need for revisions. However, it took 11 months for Lubrication Science to arrive to this verdict. I sent emails to the Associated Editor three times to complain about the long review duration. She would send the apologizing messages back every time.
Sedimentary Geology
5.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Social Science and Medicine
14.6 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
JAMA Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
5.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nucleic Acids Research
2.6 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
PNAS
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Molecular Biology and Evolution
9.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Reasonable comments but slow, probably due to the editors.
Manuscrito
33.0 weeks
33.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Philosophical Psychology
13.0 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: - receiving the reviews after three months is okay, I think.
- some delays were caused by myself as it took me some time to improve my text.
- the reviews were good, most of them included very good comments and questions, the tone was citical but friendly.
- as far as I know, the text was reviewed by philosophers as well as by psychologists
Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Diversity and Distributions
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Internet and Higher Education
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
iForest
8.0 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
Geoforum
8.4 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I believe it was a relatively quick process, and the comments of the reviewers made sense.
Central European Journal of Public Policy
4.7 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: In overall it was quite good collaboration. The communication between author and editor was on time, no delays in answers. The reviews were helpful and constructive. The manuscript submission system was very helpful in order to provide the account for the funding institution.
Philosophical Psychology
24.1 weeks
44.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Theological Studies
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The journal editor was prompt and courteous, and the review process was particular speedy—less than 2 month, which is almost unheard of in the guild. The review was on the brief side and not particularly conducive to meaningful revisions (more along the lines of comments rather than concrete suggestions), but still helpful. A downside of the publishing (rather than the review) process is the fact that the journal has only two issues per year, so the pipeline is incredibly long (it can take up to 1.5 yrs for an article to appear).
PLoS ONE
15.0 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: Lost editor during summer, although PLoS stated that the new editor would take delay into account, it stool took 15 weeks before we had an outcome. Review reports were brief but fair. Second round of reviewing went faster.
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Disputatio
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Journal of Social Philosophy
27.9 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: The review reports were very useful. My only reason for not giving an overall 'Excellent' rating for this journal is that the review process could be a little bit shorter.
Fisheries Oceanography
8.3 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough reviews from qualified, competent reviewers.
Reasonable response time on original submission.
However, despite highly favorable reviews from both reviewers, editor sent revision out for re-review. Should have been easy (fast) revaluation & response by editor without need to re-review. This process took 2 months longer than necessary and placed excess burden on reviewers.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Geographical Systems
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Sea Research
8.7 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Competent reviews from diverse panel of reviewers. Reasonable response times at all phases of process.
PLoS ONE
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewing process is smooth and valid reasons for rejection were given
Oecologia
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Nature Communications
10.3 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The process took slightly longer than expected, but we received high-quality reviews which substantially improved the manuscript.
Journal of the Royal Society Interface
6.1 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: All reviews were helpful, constructive and thus made publication of our work a reachable goal.
Theoretical Ecology
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
10.0 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very good and efficient process. The reviews were helpful and timely, and they have improved the paper.
Coral Reefs
7.6 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
Motivation: The editor and reviewer argued that if the revisions did clarified several issues and resulted in a much clearer manuscript, however, they did had serious concerns regarding the novelty of this study relative to the previous one by two of the authors ".
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.
mBio
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It requires a quite short paper with many restrictions but the review was fair. They wrote that the decision was made without reviews because the Editor's initial assessment indicated that the manuscript would not be appropriate for mBio. They suggested mSphere or mSystem for the manuscript.

Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)