Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
New Phytologist
3.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: This was an invited paper and it was handled properly. Timely review, fairly adequate comments and a reasonable decision.
New Phytologist
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: Quick peer review process, good comments, but due to lack of novelty rejected.
New Phytologist
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took the editor two weeks to decide to reject it immediately, without peer-review. The decision was poorly motivated on one incorrect argument; it seemed to be based largely on political reasons.
Scientific Reports
6.7 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was fine, but unnecessary slow editorial process and quality check period after first submission and then again after second submission.
Plant Biology
11.3 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took a bit long, but resulted in adequate comments and suggestions for improvements.
Environmental and Experimental Botany
0.9 weeks
1.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Extremely fast reviewing process. Fairly adequate comments and suggestions. Editing and type-setting phase is proper.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
11.0 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: Extremely long review process with disappointing comments. The editor did not motivate his decision well.
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent and timely handling. Good comments and the editor made some additional good points.
Proofreading stage was also very impressive and of high quality.
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
4.6 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Rapid Review process. Scientifically sound reviewer comments.
PLoS ONE
22.6 weeks
32.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Accepted
Motivation: Our paper was accepted, so my poor ratings are nothing to do with sour grapes. However, the editor did not seem especially well-informed in this subject area. While this can't be expected of a specialist journal, a massive enterprise such as PLoS One, with its legion of Editors, should be able to find a suitable editor (or to accept the Editor recommended by the authors). This caused difficulties because she did not challenge some of the frankly ridiculous comments/requests of one of the reviewers. Instead we had to make more and more changes (5 sets of revisions!), although to my mind the law of (exponential) diminishing returns was evident after the second revision. The Ed contented herself with (reading and then...?) following the requests from the reviewers for continual additional revisions. Eventually in complete exasperation, we challenged the reviewer to 'put up or shut up' and they finally conceded that they lacked unawareness of the literature. At that point I was very willing to withdraw the paper and send it elsewhere.
I also found the editor to be particularly thin skinned and frankly patronising, with her parting comment: "I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO ONE ISSUE (WHICH MAY BE OF IMPORTANCE FOR YOUR FUTURE COMMUNICATION WITH EDITORS): all my communication I did address to you (by your name), all your communication to me had been addressed to "[Dear] Editor". I would recommend you to call your future Editors by name. this is just a good communication style" (all caps in original). Now, I agree that it is a courtesy to an Editor to use their name and title, but it is difficult to take lessons about "good communication" from someone who waited until the 6th(!) decision to letter to inform us that her feelings had been hurt! We could have used her name if she pointed out this trivial oversight after letter 1. Moreover the nature of the decision letters (to amend according to the wishes of the reviewers) did nothing to dispel the idea that one was dealing with a nameless automaton. Anyway, no more PLoS submissions for me, I think!
Lancet Infectious Diseases
n/a
n/a
33 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Over 4 weeks is a long time to decide within the editorial team whether a manuscript is interesting enough for the jorunal or not. But, at least, we were offered a transfer of the manuscript to another Elsevier journal.
Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences
5.4 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was rather fast. The reviwers' questions were not difficult for us, yet they were useful and straight to the business.
Memory
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Molecular Cell
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PNAS
4.4 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Boundary-Layer Meteorology
22.0 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: Noted some conficts of interest in the review process.
Also, errors introduced at multiple stages in the proofing/printing process by the (outsourced) printing people/group.
Journal of Consumer Affairs
n/a
n/a
31 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Journal of Consumer Affairs was friendly and professional. The reasons given for rejecting our paper were that it didn't fit within the scope of the journal, and we could understand that decision. I wouldn't hesitate to submit a future paper there.
European Journal of Health Economics
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Wind Energy
27.7 weeks
47.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
2
1
Accepted
Motivation: There was a long delay after initial submission; after some communication, an (assistant?) editor appeared to 're-process' the submission, and adjusted the official submission date a bit later.
One reviewer did not understand some basic material and did not read/check relevant references, and another reviewer had an incorrect understanding of some references used; these appeared to be due to an oversimplified 'engineering' concept of the atmosphere.

Unfortunately the overall time to publication was well over 1 year, and the official article's "online" status/citable reference (2015) was later changed to published status in 2016--thus a total time >2 years for publication.
There are some good articles in this journal, but unfortunately this industrial area (wind) is occupied by both engineers and scientists--with significantly different experience and very large gaps in understanding.
PLoS ONE
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: It took about 3 weeks before the paper was even sent out for review.

The editorial process was problematic for us. Our paper was rejected despite one positive and one negative, but flawed, review. Rather than attempting to obtain another opinion, the editor took it upon himself to reject.
The EMBO Journal
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Nucleic Acids Research
4.4 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Women's Studies International Forum
19.9 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Empirical analysis for a philosophical journal
Biometrical Journal
10.7 weeks
27.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Public Economics
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
2
Rejected
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Photochemistry and Photobiology
4.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
PLoS Genetics
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PNAS
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Absolutely no feedback, despite having taken more than 3 weeks to come to this decision.
Nature Methods
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Photonics
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PNAS
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Rejected without review, but the submission process was relatively straightforward and the decision from PNAS took only about a week, so all things considered a positive experience and did not waste too much of our time.
Wear
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our manuscript about influence of nanoparticles on anti-wear properties was declined by journal "Wear" with the explanation by Editor, that our report does not discuss wear. The fact that the report was presented in World Tribology Congress was disregarded, despite "Wear" being the official publication of the Congress. Eventually our article was published by "Lubrication Science".
Tribology and Lubrication Technology
Immediately accepted after 0.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I did not even send my manuscript to Tribology and Lubrication Technology. Editors themselves selected my 1999 article from Tribology Transactions and reprinted it in 2011. They did not even ask for my consent, which would be quite OK, except that they accidentally erased one of my figures and inserted another figure twice instead.
Lubrication Science
30.6 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: It took more than half year to get the first batch of reviews. Then the second round of review involved only one reviewer, who was asking several unreasonable requests. One of them was to supply spectra, showing the absence of peaks despite our mentioning in the text that no signal was detected. Later the Editor overruled the requests of that reviewer.
Environmental and Resource Economics
n/a
n/a
42 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Land Economics
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected