Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
British Food Journal
9.1 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and straightforward process. The reviewers had many insightful suggestions that really improved the paper.
International Journal of Consumer Studies
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor thought it was not a good fit for the journal, without much explanation.
Nature Materials
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick responce! Rejected within 3 days. Do did not have to waste time!
BMC Research Notes
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My manuscript was not found suitable for BMC Research Notes and the editorial team suggested to transfer my manuscript to Journal of Medical Case Reports. I agreed to the transfer.
Journal of Medical Case Reports
27.0 weeks
38.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: I do not have any negative experience or any criticism to the Journal of Medical Case Reports. My overall experience was positive. The review process was slow. I am happy with the outcome. My manuscript was published.
Journal of the Electrochemical Society
Immediately accepted after 15.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
International Journal of Human Resource Management
28.9 weeks
72.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
14.1 weeks
27.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nanoscale Research Letters
9.3 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Disease Models and Mechanisms: DMM
3.0 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Professional and competent handling by the editors, fair and helpful reviewers.
Eukaryotic Cell
0.1 weeks
0.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The fastest review process I've ever seen, and not for the first time with this journal. Fair, fast, and very helpful. The submission system is also highly author-friendly.
Eukaryotic Cell
0.7 weeks
0.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast, friendly, and professional handling by the editor; helpful, polite, and professional reviewer comments
PLoS Biology
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS Pathogens
5.6 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews was fair and mostly constructive, the last round however was based on a reviewer who missed the point and required unnecessary work. The editorial team, otherwise very helpful and fair, should have stepped in at that point. In summary however, the manuscript was handled mostly fair and did improve by the review process.
PLoS Pathogens
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Drawn back
PLoS Biology
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
10.7 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: a bit slow, but thorough, fair reviews
The Lancet Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Medical Systems
4.6 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
IEEE Sensors Journal
15.1 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
6.6 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Environmental Research Letters
15.4 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were helpful and suggested several important improvements to our paper. The review process was a bit slow for a 'letters' journal (>3 months) but not too bad. After submitting revisions, a decision was made quickly.
Geophysical Research Letters
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were received quickly and offered several suggestions for improvements, which we made before submitting to a different journal.
eNeuro
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was judged to preliminary by the journal and was rejected in reasonable delay.
Scientific Reports
7.1 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer did not want our paper to be accepted and the editor did not send our manuscript to another reviewer. Thus the paper was rejected after months of revision.

Each time the paper is submites, there is a the quality check that take two weeks before the paper is send to reviewers.
European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology
37.3 weeks
46.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Journal of Clinical Virology
9.3 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Signal Processing: Image Communication
13.0 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers have done valuable comments that strengthened the paper.
European Urology
Immediately accepted after 4.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I sent my article as a letter to the editor, so it does not need an external reading
Journal of Applied Spectroscopy
21.9 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
6.6 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
European Journal of Mass Spectrometry
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Biochemistry
4.3 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Plant Disease
Immediately accepted after 3.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
International Journal of Climatology
13.7 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
RSC Advances
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It is obvious the editor does not have enough knowledge in this area! last year I have published a lesser work of mine in this journal, and now I have received this comment.
Electrochemistry Communications
2.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Vocations and Learning
16.6 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
Biodegradation
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nutrition Reviews
24.0 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The time it took was exceptionally long (24 weeks), and resulted in only 1 reviewer report. The editor apologized for the long waiting time, but it still was a major drawback for this paper.