Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
International Journal of Consumer Studies
18.3 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Cleaner Production
7.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The overall review process was very efficient and the review reports were very constructive.
Scientific Reports
6.4 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Good 1: The first decision was made in one month after assigning a tracking number.
Good 2: Comments and criticism were fair.
Bad 1: Quality check. It took a long time before sending to editor.
Bad 2: Unexpected delay after revised manuscript submission.
Child Abuse and Neglect
9.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews was good and greatly improved the paper. The second round of reviews was also helpful. After an initial long wait for the first decision the process got a lot speedier. However, I felt that one reviewer and one of the editors were asking me to re-frame results in a way that was not supported by evidence, which took a number of minor revisions and rebuttal letters to agree on.
Journal of Rural Studies
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Although the editor sent the paper for review promptly, and I got notification the reviews were completed a month after submission, I only got a response from the editor when I sent a prompt to him 2 mths later. In other words the editor sat on the reviews for 2 mths with no action.
Acta Psychologica
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Overall, reviews weren't very negative but manuscript was still rejected. Comparably fast process though.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
4.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and precise revisions, and rapid handling by the Editorial team
American Journal of Gastroenterology
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: I do not understand why the Editors send the papers to reviewers if they think that an article does not have anyway enough priority for the journal, waisting Authors and Reviewers time.
Nature Genetics
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Annals of Neurology
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Cortex
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Decision time for immediate rejection was really short wherefore one cannot expect more than a stereotypical rejection letter.
Foreign Policy Analysis
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
PNAS
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscript was desk rejected with zero indication given that they had actually bothered to read it. They unhelpfully suggested to resubmit to journals specialising in fields that have little to do with our work. A waste of our time, in other words.
Geophysical Research Letters
12.1 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: It took a while, but I got good reviews that were very helpful. I would like to point out, however, that the turnaround time listed on the GRL website is based on manipulation of the submission times. My manuscript required only minor revision (took me less than one day), but the journal demanded that I fully resubmitted the revisions, meaning that the clock was reset. Consequently, the it appears on the website that it took only 8 weeks from submission to the published paper appearing online.
Hematology
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Infection
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick response, encouraging us to pursue a more fitting journal for our paper
PLoS ONE
2.7 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process was quick, the reviewers were focused and their remarks contributed to the paper.
The communication with the editor was very swift and pleasant.
Nature
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejection without review in Nature is now shame. However, after 10 days of editorial evaluation I would appreciate at least a brief comment on my manuscript.
Netherlands Journal of Medicine
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the reason for rejection was not entirely accurate, the fast time to first decision is good
Netherlands Journal of Medicine
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection time for case reports
Spinal Cord Series and Cases
5.3 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reasonably fast review process.
Reasonable comments by reviewer.
European Journal of Internal Medicine
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reasonably fast rejection time without peer reviewing, thus minimizing the lost time before submitting to another journal.
Internal Medicine
13.9 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: It took 2 months for the editors to find reviewers willing to review the paper.
While the report of the first reviewer was detailed with many suggestions, the report of the second reviewer was very short and dismissive.
3 months of waiting is a considerable amount of time only to have the paper rejected.
Infection
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast time to rejection of the case report submitted
Emergency Medicine Journal
0.7 weeks
0.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
4
Rejected
Motivation: Very fast review process (comments from reviewers and first decision after about just 1 month)
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
3.0 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Applied Physics Letters
6.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: Although the manuscript was eventually accepted, the revision process took too long. I understand the topic was new, but it took them a month to accept my revised manuscript despite the fact that the revisions were very minor.
Applied Physics Letters
2.6 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: This was a quick and high-quality peer-review process.
Applied Physics Letters
3.7 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer comments were extremely helpful although it took them more than ten days to accept the revised manuscript.
IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices
5.6 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: One reviewer (out of three) has apparently not read the manuscript. Other reviewer reports were somewhat helpful.
Journal of Medical Systems
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Pakistan Development Review
n/a
n/a
63 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Mathematical Finance
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast rejection, no reason given.
World Development
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Demography
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
ACS Macro Letters
11.1 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Advanced Materials
3.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Scientific Reports
9.3 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took a long time relative to other journals of similar quality. At each stage the manuscript had to pass through a quality check that significantly delayed the review process and required all or most of the files to be uploaded again.
Materials Characterization
7.0 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected