Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Human Resource Management Journal
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Scientific Reports
11.6 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: review was too long ; ms sent on 28th september 2015; accepted as completed only on 15th october and first decision only on 04th january 2015
Even the evaluation was very long : 6 weeks for an acceptance without additional corrections
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part C: Toxicology and Pharmacology
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Learning and Individual Differences
21.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Langmuir
4.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Physical Chemistry, C
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was clear, rather quick, and properly handled by the editors.
The referee comments were appropriate and helped us.
The overall duration of hte revision process was absolutely acceptable.
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
22.4 weeks
30.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were useful and quite to the point. The communication with the Editor was perfect, but it took some time to receive the reviews and the decision.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
24.1 weeks
56.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Most of the reviews were useful and they have improved the paper, but the process of receiving the reviews and the decision was inexcusably slow. Communication with the editor could have been better, and the editor could have been more engaged in the process. One reviewer had unreasonable comments, and we feel that the editor should have stepped in after our rebuttal. This has considerably delayed the publication for no reason. After acceptance, typesetting by Elsevier induced some errors and it was also slow. CEUS is a good journal, but our experience with this paper was bad.
Climatic Change
25.7 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fairly good review process, with acceptable time between submission and acceptance.
Global Change Biology
4.6 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Everything went very smoothly, the review was fast and efficient.
European Journal of Forest Research
13.1 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review was constructive with plenty of suggestions to improve the manuscript's quality. The time to handle the manuscript was fair.
International Journal of Medical Informatics
21.7 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review comments were good.
The editorial process was fast
Social Psychological and Personality Science
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Stem Cells and Development
5.9 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editor (Dr. Parker) was very constructive in his remarks and granted us more time to do the necessary experimental procedures that were needed for the revision. Review process was within the time allocated and reviewers comments were constructive.
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
International Journal of Human Resource Management
28.9 weeks
70.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Aging and Disease
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
5 reports
3
4
Accepted
Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The comments from Editorial Office and from the referees were in general insightful, the weakest point is that the overall process took quite long time
Journal of Medical Internet Research
2.7 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional and prompt responses. I was impressed with the interface for submission and the turnaround on submissions and revisions.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor explained what was wrong about the manuscript, and advised some brief changes that could be made in order to be considered for peer-review in the same journal.
European Journal of Pediatrics
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It was not clear that all authors had to send a confirmation email to the journal. Therefore there was a huge delay in the editorial process.
Environmental Science and Policy
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: The overall review process was not properly managed by the Editor. We submitted two companion papers to the same journal, highlighting, in our letter to the Editor, that they were related to the same topic and suggesting to handle them together. After 3 months, apparently, the Editor was not able to find any reviewer for our manuscripts. After almost 5 months, just one paper was sent to one reviewer. Unfortunately, the reviewer received only the second paper, without any information about the companion one, and he could not evaluate it. The conclusion was that he rejected the paper, while after five months, apparently, the Editor was still looking for a reviewer for the first paper. At the end, we decided to retire both the manuscripts. They were both submitted to another journal (Carbon Balance and Management), which provided a revision, from two reviewers, in three weeks. The first paper is now under publication and the second is under revision, after having recieved the comments from the reviewer.
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Almost 3 weeks of waiting just to hear that the paper "is not considered suitable" for the journal. That's too long.
Forest Ecology and Management
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
BMC Biology
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Communications
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took so long although the paper was a short communication type. The editor made a decision based on just one of the three reviewers' views and opinions that were not supported by any reference. I think the editors might want to consider more carefully the obvious "conflict of interest" raised by some reviewers before making the final decision.
New Phytologist
10.9 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Good referee comments, which improved the manuscript; yet the editor did not seem to dare taking decisions. Despite positive remarks, he insisted on several rounds of further revision before it was finally accepted.
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!