Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Languages in Contrast
9.3 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Professional editorial staff, swift review process with decent reviews, some of which have really read the manuscript properly, and quick publication.
Applied Linguistics
25.9 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: Given the length of the review process, the reviews were of low quality, some of them just stating typographical errors, and one was just a few sentences long. The editor himself, it has to be said, has provided the most detailed feedback and thus made a great effort to make up for the disappointing reviews.
The typesetters introduced some errors at critical points in the manuscript. The article appeared swiftly as an online first publication but it seems to take around two years until it will actually appear in an issue.
Journal of Proteome Research
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor explained what was wrong about the manuscript, and indicated another companion journal to be considered for submitting the paper.
Proteome Science
4.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good automated system for submitting paper, quick review process with useful comments of reviewers
SAGE Open
25.3 weeks
36.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although many of the reviewers`contributions were very accurate and positive, helping me improve my article, one of the reviewer seemed rather picky. Nevertheless, I tried to overcome any obstacles on the way and accepted to respond to their requirements, mostly because they were relevant.
Journal of Medical Systems
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Industrial Crops and Products
21.7 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
European Journal of Ageing
19.7 weeks
35.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: This review process was hard to pass, some of the comments contradictory between reviewers or between review rounds. The journal offers double-blind review, which we requested but during the review process it showed up that we as authors are not blinded and this information for authors is not valid. However, the process was still of rather high quality and helped our paper to improve. We were also enabled to prolong a period of resibmitting.
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
6.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was so quick with handling everything and the reviewer comments were extremely helpful.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Classical and Quantum Gravity
11.1 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Classical and Quantum Gravity
6.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
American Heart Journal
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Quick review process with good, usable comments of reviewers
Applied Mathematical Sciences
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast review process and a kind and available Editor
Nature
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society
27.7 weeks
29.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The journal has a very good automated system of submitting papers. It was quite easy to submit and the process (submitting-acceptance) did not take too long.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology
8.7 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Physics of Plasmas
2.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Physical Review Letters
2.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Laser and Particle Beams
2.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Optics Express
2.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Toxicon
10.4 weeks
30.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Inverse Problems
n/a
n/a
107 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editorial board member completely missed the point in the paper. The journal also did not reveal the name of the editorial board member. Even though it was not sent for external review, the journal did not provide any name of a person who had handled the paper, except for the secretarial assistant who manages the emails. Why it took almost 4 months for a non-review is another question.
Laser and Particle Beams
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Physics of Plasmas
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
6.0 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process of the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology was reasonably fast and efficient. Comments made by reviewers were constructive. The revised manuscript was promptly accepted.
Food Chemistry
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Open Linguistics
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers were relatively fast and quite helpful. Verdict was 'minor revisions'. Time from acceptance to publication was longer than expected given the review process, and working with the typesetters was challenging (no direct contact possible, and corrections on proofs are not always handled systematically).
Discourse Studies
2.4 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The initial review was high quality, though we were surprised there was only one reviewer. It included critical comments on the overall paper as well as proposed minor edits to the ms text, so clearly the reviewer had spent a lot of time. The editor just forwarded the review without adding any comments of their own. Resubmission took over a year due to external circumstances; after that, acceptance came lightning fast, without the review round we were expecting. Again, the editor had no comments except to say that this version was fine. The paper did improve a lot thanks to the initial review, but still it feels weird to skip the second review round (if I had been the original reviewer I would've wanted to see the response to reviewers and the edits made). But perhaps at this journal, "revise and resubmit" can mean anything from minor revisions to almost rejected, and our ms ended up more towards the former end of the scale.
Energy
8.0 weeks
36.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: The Journal is very valuable and the reviews are deep and detailed. The only not good thing I found was that the final acceptance process is quite low, but, in general, I consider the Journal as high performance.
International Journal of Cardiology
3.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick review process. Good reviewer comments.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
12.9 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process has been detailed and quite fast.
The Editor is always available for all communications and information.
BMC Public Health
0.7 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript in hand was a study protocol already approved by external reviewers during the funding stage. In this way, the review process by BMC Public Health was very quick and strait to the point, but the time between acceptance and publication was relatively long (6 weeks) when compare with the review process.
Psychologia
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Psychologia
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
International Journal of Neural Systems
16.6 weeks
24.4 weeks
n/a
6 reports
4
3
Accepted
Seismological Research Letters
8.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Biological Conservation
25.1 weeks
33.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Accepted
Motivation: It seemed that there was one negative peer reviewer who had misunderstood some of the study design, of the 3 reviewers the only one to do so, and there were a number of suggestions that did not seem relevant to the authors.
Work and Stress
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected