Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Thrombosis and Haemostasis
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: In general the reviews and comments are reasonable, the journal has a great turnaround time
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology
9.3 weeks
32.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The entire process took a long time and I wish the journal had rejected it sooner, rather than having me go through two rounds of revisions prior to ultimately rejecting it. Also, one of the reviewers thoughts it was fine as is, whereas one of the revisions had only a couple of sticking points. It seemed like the small issues that ultimately led to the paper being rejected were too minor for outright rejection.
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular and Integrative Physiology
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Experimental Zoology, Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Rapid and consistent.
Molecular Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
British Educational Research Journal
n/a
n/a
102 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editors decided that the manuscript was not appropriate / relevant. I wonder why this decision took them 3 months.
Critical Inquiry
n/a
n/a
130 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Critical Inquiry
n/a
n/a
161 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Political Studies
12.0 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Astronomical Journal
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
7.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process went generally smoothly with this journal.
Limnology and Oceanography
n/a
n/a
55 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Neuroimmunology
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion
21.7 weeks
30.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very qualified and encouraging comments from the reviewers and especially the editor.
Clinical Infectious Diseases
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: At least it was speedy!
PLoS ONE
12.0 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: Change of Editors between submissions. Very slow: was not sent for review for at least a month and needed prompting by email to get etc.
Journal of Neuroendocrinology
4.1 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast, easy, painless process. Highly recommended.
Journal of Neuroendocrinology
4.0 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Irrigation and Drainage
22.9 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Drawn back
Motivation: Overall, the reviews were fair and highlighted some aspects of the paper that could be improved in order to make it stronger. However, while the senior editor and one of the reviewers were fair in their comments and assessment of the paper, the other reviewer was unduly harsh and critical.
Tuberculosis
9.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Strong Editorial decision making despite intermediate quality reviews.
Nature Chemical Biology
5.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Cortex
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: We lost too much time with this revision process (without positive results!)
Cell
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor wrote a nice letter. They were unsure how 'interesting' our story was: so it was sent for 'informal external review' to one expert. That expert suggested rejection, so the paper was not sent for formal review. Though disappointing, it was at least decent to have had the Editor consider our ms carefully.
Environmental Conservation
19.7 weeks
54.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although the revision process took some time, the editors were very helpful in every aspect, for example they answered my questions immediately and connected me directly with one reviewer to discuss some complex issues of the revision.
PeerJ
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were relatively fast, and especially the comments by the editor were very good.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Delay too long in obtaining the decision of editors
Agricultural Water Management
n/a
n/a
83 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
15.2 weeks
16.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were of very low quality, we did submit an appeal but after almost 4 months of waiting for an answer we withdraw it
Assessment
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This is the reason given for immediate rejection of the manuscript:

"Although it is quite clear that a great deal of effort and thinking went into your study, unfortunately, I find that is (sic) not suitable for publication in Assessment."
Assessment
11.4 weeks
38.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Many good points made in reviews that improved the manuscript, but the overall process took almost 2 years with 4 rounds of review. At the same time, the journal published other papers fairly quickly that clearly were not held to the same standard. Unevenness in the rigor of review and overly picky requirements by some reviewers/editors seems like a problem.
Ethnic and Racial Studies
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was quite constructive and identified how the paper should be improved. The other one was picking on minor things, but the editor suggested we consider the former one's comments -- which we'll do. Given the comments we got, I'm mostly disappointed with our not spotting these weaknesses; the handling of the manuscript was fair.
Journal of Psychiatric Research
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Drawn back
Motivation: Reviewers did not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript. Their directions for changes indicated that they did not understand the appropriate statistical methods for the study conducted.
Cortex
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: The referee's suggestion was not so negative, but the Editor decided to reject the manuscript on the basis of her/his comments (just 1 referee).
Neuropsychologia
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: I was not agree with a few of the referees' ideas, but they worked in a reasonable amount of time.
Neuropsychologia
5.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Neuroscience
10.7 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The entire review process has taken a really long time
PeerJ
2.0 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and correct review precess
Brain Stimulation
1.3 weeks
1.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review process.