Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
PNAS
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took some time to the editor to look into the manuscript and take a decision. It was expected to get a rejection from PNAS not because the work is not novel rather it was hard to find a suitable editor from the list of NAS members available on their website (who can be a right fit to review the work). Therefore, we suggested the names of few people to act as guest editor, however we think that they did not consider our request.
Industrial Crops and Products
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Functional Foods
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Philosophical Quarterly
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
0
Rejected
Motivation: While the referee was extremely positive, the editor decided to reject anyway (apparently the article was just not to her taste). This has happened a number of times for the journal and it makes me not want to referee for them - if the editor is going to make a decision that overturns that of the referee anyway, what's the point?
Appetite
7.6 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Nature
5.9 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature Microbiology
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Immunology
12.6 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature Genetics
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Genetics
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Drawn back
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Geophysical Research
7.4 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Forest Ecology and Management
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Annals of Forest Science
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: a long time to the first decision; the editor decision was reject with the possibility of resubmission, which I consider as a bad practice of some journals to boost their indexes; after two months we resubmitted our revised MS to the same journal and our paper was published
Journal of Ecology
9.0 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: the handling time was fair, the review report was a high quality with many excelent suggestions
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: Judging from the editorial manager system, it already took a month until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Eventually, only one of two submitted a review, the gist of which was that the manuscript is not suited for the journal. Overall I think the whole process took way too long. The editor should have been able to either make a decision about the suitability of the manuscript before sending it out to reviewers, or be more strict about review deadlines. Waiting almost four months for a response just cost us a lot of time that we could have used more efficiently by submitting to another journal.
Annals of Botany
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Oecologia
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Annales de la Société Entomologique de France/International Journal of Entomology
26.0 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Ecological Entomology
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Common Market Studies
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Rejected
Motivation: Very responsive.
Neuropsychopharmacology
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Addiction Biology
9.3 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Bulletin of Volcanology
20.4 weeks
40.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Kyklos
18.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were fair, but were very much oriented towards mainstream economiics.
Journal of Lie Theory
50.9 weeks
50.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The report was useful and very detailed but it took one year
Geology
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Tetrahedron Letters
2.9 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Tetrahedron
4.7 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Green Chemistry
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering
2.1 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Journal of European Social Policy
18.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were not very connected to the topic and the remarks could have been dealt with, but apparently a rejection was recommended.
Ageing and Society
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Two reviewers were divided and editor did not want to advise a major revision of the paper.
PLoS ONE
12.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: It took a long time to assign Editor. Once Editor was assigned, the process was much quicker.
Scientific Reports
10.4 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Oikos
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Oecologia
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I was very disappointed that the journal sat with the paper for over 3 weeks before alerting us that it would not be sent out to review. I understand limited space is an issue and that editors need to be selective in what articles they will send out to over burdened reviewers, but an immediate rejection should take place in under a week so as to not waste the authors time.