Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
10.8 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.3 weeks
4.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: Disappointed editor did not provide a specific reasons for rejection. Extremely impressed with efficiency of turnaround - 4.1 weeks including christmas break.
15.2 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
2
Rejected
9.9 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
52 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
16.3 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: I received two reviews. One was thoughtful, the other was two sentences long.
21.9 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Extremely long review process ( 5 months). Associate editor couldn't find reviewers and in the end got only two instead of three. Rejection decision was based on concerns expressed by the two reviewers that were clearly debatable and showed a one-sided theoretical bias. I would have like to have the chance to respond to the reviews. I didn't... I got the sense that the manuscript got the shaft by the associate editor as he/she didn't get involved and wanted this done with. Not impress by the review process.
38.6 weeks
38.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
17.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although it took a relatively long time for the editor to find suitable reviewers who were willing to do the job, the processing time was fast after I had made the second round of corrections as suggested by the reviewers.
n/a
n/a
121 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I wonder how an editor would retain a paper for over four months and yet would still feel it's not worth sending to external reviewers. The most annoying part of the whole issue was that having been on the editor's table for well over 4 months, there wasn't any value addition to the paper in the end; the editor did not give any cogent reasons as to why the paper had to be returned! This was my experience.
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
5
Rejected
Motivation: The editor was extremely professional and went out of her way to be fair. Although the reviewers rejected the manuscript, the editor allowed us to send a rebuttal. The reviewers were irrational and unwilling to listen to any argument. I think the editor knew that the reviewers were wrong but she couldn't do anything to change the outcome. In my experience, reviewers are always responsible for the current situation in the manuscript review process.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.4 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
6.0 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
1.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
1
Rejected
25.0 weeks
54.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The journal sets very tight deadlines for resubmissions and compared to this their own process is not super-fast, but ok. Communication by managerial team is excellent.
13.4 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: Referee reports in second round were of poor quality, but it also seems that the editor considered the paper to be not within the aims and scope of the journal - which is of course ok, but usually this gives you a desk rejection.
5.9 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
15.9 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: I was impressed with the journal and how my manuscript was reviewed and finally accepted. The editors work with the authors to produce a high quality paper. I also appreciated that the editor made the decision to accept the paper after revision without sending it back to review, despite substantial changes. This greatly reduces the time to the publishing.
15.0 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were thorough, however it took almost 110 days to first decision. This was despite the fact that I could see via the online portal that the reviews themselves had been completed weeks prior to this. Took more than 1 email for this to be acknowledged and a decision sent. Total handling time was very long. However once accepted the paper was formatted and posted online very quickly.
9.9 weeks
36.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: At least the rejection was timely. However, the reviews were one paragraph each which wasn't particularly helpful. Also, editor indicated paper should have psychophys data which ours did not (it was a methods paper), but the journal has published similar papers in the past.
6.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: It was obvious that one of the reviewers didn't read the manuscript.
The editor offered to send the article to the same referees if resubmitted after being revised, but once it was submited again he didn't do it, and the process started again with another editor and referees.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor suggested to transfer the article to the Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The rejection in itself was not a problem as the paper indeed needed further improvement. Rather, the problem was that one of the reviews was particularly abrasive and offensive at a personal level (including a statement such as "To correct its [the paper's] flaws a sabbatical at a good library is required."). I was disappointed in the editors' decision not to dismiss such a review when making the decision. While the latter may have still been 'reject', abrasive reviews are not conducive to academic debates and editors should take particular care in accepting them.