Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
7.6 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Analyst
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Nano Research
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I received three reviews, more or less dealing with different aspects of the manuscript so the review was very complete and helpful. Some of the comments came from more than one referee. I was positively surprised by the speed of the whole process, which took 5 weeks. I would definitely consider submitting again to this journal.
Analytical Chemistry
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews covered the whole acceptance spectrum, all mostly helpful. One suggested minor revision, another rejection (but actually suggesting some changes), the third one major revision but with only three comments, one of them we did not agree and justify it in the letter to the editor. We did the changes and got it accepted without major issues.
Journal of Number Theory
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Responsible and timely handling of the manuscript.
Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A
n/a
n/a
39 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took more than a month to come up with

"This work
does not seem appropriate for a combinatorial journal and
in particular for JCTA

No explanation was given.
Journal of the International Phonetic Association
40.3 weeks
40.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Accepted
Motivation: Had a profoundly terrible experience with the editorial process. The review took a long time because the editors wanted a reviewer with a lot of knowledge of the language - this is an excellent idea, and as such I really didn't mind the long turnaround time for the review. The decision was 'accept with minor revisions'; the one review could have been more rigorous, I felt, since it seemed to focus mostly on formatting and typos.

What made the experience unsatisfying was that the editor gave us many additional detailed comments, but only AFTER we had made the necessary revisions and submitted the revised version. These post-hoc comments were extremely unhelpful. As a result, it was 5 months between when the article was accepted and when it finally made it to the copy editor. I will probably end up submitting to the journal again in the future, but I'm already not looking forward to it.
Biomicrofluidics
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: almost 50 days to rejection based on only single review
Analytical Chemistry
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
Journal of Theoretical Biology
4.3 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Accepted
Motivation: In the past couple of years many journals are finding it harder to find reviewers, especially in interdisciplinary subjects. Although almost all of them have jumped on the Open Access bandwagon to raise funds, they have cut back on the processing time by having junior and/or unqualified associate editors make quick decisions about whether to even send out papers for external review. This is not good for Science.
Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing
20.6 weeks
41.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Ageing and Society
17.0 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process was well organized, although the first review round could have been shorter
Nature Communications
13.0 weeks
17.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Psychological Research
11.0 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review process.
Very kind responses from the editor.
Helpful comments from the reviewers
Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics
10.3 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very kind editor giving fast responses.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was rather rigorous, but at the same time, fair, constructive, and rapid.
Psychopharmacology
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Drawn back
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I felt that waiting 3 months before being informed that the journal could not find reviewers for my paper was slower than necessary.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
9.1 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
3
Accepted
Motivation: The editor of our manuscript was responsive and easy to communicate with. However, our paper only received 1 review, which was fairly minimal.
Water Resources Research
7.6 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was timely, the reviewer and editor comments were helpful, and the online submission system was fairly intuitive. I have no complaints.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Land Use Policy
44.6 weeks
52.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Technovation
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
9.1 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
7.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Environmental Modelling and Software
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Environmental Modelling and Software
n/a
n/a
54 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The first internal review was a bit long (almost 2 months) given the output (rejection without external review). However, elements were provided in order to improve the paper quality.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
20.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Besides the 2 external reviewers, the editor in chief and the associate editor also provide a comprehensive review of the paper on both aspects, content and form. The first review round was a bit long but very comprehensive. The handling of the revised manuscript was quite efficient.
Personality and Individual Differences
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
0.4 weeks
0.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The anonymous peer reviewers selected by this journal are professionals who are familiar with my research topics.
European Sociological Review
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Very fast review procedure
American Sociological Review
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review procedure, which is much appreciated
Applied Mathematics Letters
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Foresight
4.7 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Accepted
Menopause
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: We acquired constructive comments from three reviewers and the process was fast.
European Journal of Population
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
3.9 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Information and Management
17.3 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Computational Neuroscience
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: -the revision duration was correct
-the reviewers arguments to reject the paper were acceptable