Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
24.6 weeks
24.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Drawn back
Motivation: We doubt that this manuscript was carefully reviewed because in only one review that we have received, only a few minor changes that could be easily corrected were suggested. Also, by his comments the reviewer showed a lack of understanding and knowing about the topic of the manuscript. Furthermore, the editor did not write any valid explanation of the rejection although the reviewer commented that results were interesting, and certainly did not suggest rejection of the manuscript. After so long a period of waiting we consider this kind of treatment to be unfair at least.
9.0 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript submission was relatively simple and we received the first round of reviews in just over 2 months. The reviews were constructive and fair, and the manuscript was improved in quality after resubmission. The handling of the manuscript seemed prompt, fair, and diligent. Overall, I had a positive experience with ERL.
9.7 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: This journal has a very swift editorial policy and manuscripts are rapidly sent out for review, and editorial decisions are taken fast. Still, he editors carefully study the review reports and do not only automatically forward them to the authors: This is very helpful and shows a high quality of the editorial work at Powder Technology. I suggest that the other Elsevier journals would adopt this policy, because many of them would have a lot to learn from it.
7.4 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: They had a hard time finding a handling editor. But once they found one, she dealt with it amazingly fast, within 2 weeks.
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: I wish I wanted an opinion from more than one review. My general impression of this journal is that the editor(s) rely too much on reviewers' comments, not making their own decisions.
30.6 weeks
57.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was OK but the journal response on the reviews was slow (manuscript hanging more than one month at the editorial office for each decision) and editors started their own review process after the real reviewers had done their job, focusing on technical matters. The associate editor also made a mistake and incorrectly studied our initial submission after the first revision round, and commented matters that were not relevant to the revised paper. Pointing out this mistake was obviously something we should never have done as the journal and is action is flawless. Eventually, the paper was however accepted.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: On a positive side - the feedback was quite quick. On a negative side - I had a feeling that the editor didn't read the text carefully.
n/a
n/a
86 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Disappointing to receive a desk rejection more than 12 weeks after submission.
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fair and fast. The suggestions by the Reviewers was of high quality.
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Rejected
Motivation: The decision letter was written in a more personal tone instead of objective criticism.
11.1 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The interactive review system of Frontiers has benefits and drawbacks. It is nice to have the feeling to be more in discussion with the Reviewers as scientif colleagues than as judges. However, the interactive review system also seems to prolong the process. In addition, it is really annoying that each answer has to be placed in a separate box, meaning that you have to copy and paste the answers prepared in one file on your computer one after another.
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The Rieviewers and the Editor had reasonable concerns and stated them objectively.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
11.0 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Great experience. Reviews were thorough, informative and fair. Encouragement along the way from the Editor too. A really great experience. JEMS is an exemplar of how the peer review system should work.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 121.6 days
Drawn back
Motivation: As on previous occassions, Plos One failed to find a willing editor within a reasonable time frame. Hence, we decided to withdraw and has since published it elsewhere.
13.0 weeks
13.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The subject editor had problems finding more than one willing referee, so acted him/her-self as referee. Took some time though.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editorial reject. The article was deemed too specific and not contributing to a wide audience.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
24.0 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The technical editor did a great job in replying to all of our comments and queries.
From the two peer reviewers, only one of them provided comments and suggestions that required structural and valid changes to the manuscript. The second reviewers praised and encouraged the work without any recommendations for modifications or change. The Editor-in-chief also responds to any query or concern if requested to.
The overall experience of publishing this manuscript with the assistance of the editorial board of the JECP, was an inspiring, learning and pleasant one!
30.4 weeks
36.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
5.7 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: This journal is a good scientific one for publishing.
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
5.6 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
15.4 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of only one of the two review reports was helpful. More importantly, it took the very long ( several months) to send back the review reports, and the reference and layout needed to be changed several times before we reached the final acceptance.
n/a
n/a
31 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our paper was not sent to peer review because of unfair desicion of Editorial Board Member who handled our submission. He assessed our paper based on its significance not its scientific and technical soundness. We appealed for this desicion because It is clearly stated in the aim and scope section that "referees and editorial board members will determine whether a paper is scientifically valid, rather than making judgements on significance or whether the submission represents a conceptual advance". However since Scientific Reports allow appeals only after peer reviews, they rejected our appeals as well. We moved on another jornal.
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
16.0 weeks
36.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although, it took so much tme, the review process has considerably enhanced the content and quality of the paper.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.6 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was constructive and fast.
Very good contact with the Editor.
11.1 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
17.0 weeks
34.9 weeks
n/a
5 reports
3
0
Rejected
16.9 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Fairly swift review process with good reviewer comments.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
0.1 weeks
0.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Rejected
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Accepted
Motivation: This was a short commentary piece. Reviewers' comments were brief. The editors communicated well and worked relatively quickly.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Firstly, their submission process has issues. Although I followed their submission guidelines very carefully, they requested that I reformat the references a particular way which was not indicated in their guidelines. Of course, by the time that I was notified of this I was out of town at a conference and could not tend to it until I returned. 4 days lost. I will not bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that their were issues with their submission engine and confusion amongst their staff that required me sending several emails to clear up. They were apologetic and professional but I could not help but feel that I was dealing with amateurs.

In my experience, what they claim to stand for and what they actually do are not in alignment. For one, they claim to want to support early career scientists. One of the ways they say they do this is by giving special consideration to early career scientists when determining whether or not in-depth peer-review is merited. I'm an early career scientist and my manuscript was desk rejected. While I am aware that this happens all the time, this is a manuscript which has the support of, and benefited from the feedback from, arguably the most respected scientist in my field (he stated that my manuscript was "very important" and must to be published) as well as another top scientist from a closely related field.

It was clear from the decision letter that they spent very little effort in assessing the merits of the manuscript (or writing the decision letter itself for that matter). I don't believe that this reflects on their competency, only the fact that they simply did not care. You see, I'm not at a tier one university and my name is not known in the field (outside of to my long-distance mentors who are well known). I would suggest that anyone not from a 1st tier university or research institute browse the eLife website and note the affiliations of the authors of the articles. While it is not surprising that 1st tiers are represented disproportionately there are very, very few non-1st tier author affiliations (considerably fewer than you find in Nature/Science/Cell). I could not find a single manuscript with an author from the same State that I live in.

On the other hand, if you ARE from a tier one university and have a manuscript that doesn't meet the expectations of Nature/Science/Cell then eLife may just be the ticket!