Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Revue de Medecine Veterinaire
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Revue de Medecine Veterinaire is an excellent peer reviewed journal
Cellular and Molecular Biology
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: the cellular and molecular biology journal is a peer reviewed journal in all fields of molecular biology
Journal of Infection in Developing Countries
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
7.7 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: it was a good experience.
Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 364.8 days
Drawn back
Motivation: The entire process was a nightmare. The paper has to be sent to a member of the editorial board. I did not get any acknowledgment that my paper was received, so I sent a kind request to inquire about it. This time I got my acknowledgment. However I did not hear anything from the journal for almost one year. I finally decided to contact the editorial member to whom I sent the paper, at least twice, but I did not get any reply. After 1 year I gave up and sent the paper to another journal, which was also quite slow. As a result, the paper took 3 years from the date it was finished to the date it was published.
Psychometrika
1.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Breast Cancer Research
17.9 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
1
Accepted
Energy
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
European Journal of Social Theory
18.6 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Although one of the review reports was a bit late, the editor responded quickly, apologized and did everything in their powers to make the process as smooth as possible. Would recommend!
World Development
35.0 weeks
35.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Initial submission had been duplicated in the file tank directory. The online submission system is not particularly user-friendly with many deficiencies which for instance prevent a simple and straightforward manuscript file generation. The referee comments were mixed. Some of them were elegant, precise, sharp and fully acknowledgable. Many of them had little resemblence to the content of the submission and mainly reflected the referees' personal view on the topic of the paper and outright criticism of the points which the paper never raised.
BioMetals
2.0 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Journal of Environmental Law
4.3 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: My overall impression was that the editorial team is a very experienced one and that the review process was managed at all stages very swiftly and, above all, very professionally. It was a very positive experience, from which my research benefited greatly.
American Journal of Public Health
12.6 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Clinical Science
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: We had to wait 5 weeks for just only 1report from an external referee and comments (two lines) from a member of the Editorial Board. Moreover the rebuttal letter was not replied.
Accounting, Organizations and Society
16.0 weeks
43.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: This has been the toughest but also most rewarding review process we have ever gone through (with an experience of more than 70 peer-reviewed articles together and a journal editor on board). The quality of the reviews was remarkable. We were forced to think further, broader, deeper, and again. We came out of the process exhausted, but extremly satisfied. Academic collegiality at its best.
IEEE Transactions on Communications
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers failed to recognize the fact that a new method of numerically deriving the exact probability of error for M-ary PSK in flat fading channels was proposed, besides a new channel independent precoder. The reviewers also claimed that the proposed channel independent precoder is very similar to the existing SC-OFDM. However, again the reviewers did not recognize that many of the results for the proposed channel independent precoder, were derived differently.
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
32.4 weeks
45.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Rigorous and very good review process that improved the quality of the manuscript considerably.
Waste Management
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Editor final comment about rejection is not consistent with reviewers' comments and suggestions. So, it was not clear why the paper was not accepted.
Chemical Engineering Science
8.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: This is an excellent journal in its field and we are glad with the editorial process.
Carbohydrate Polymers
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
British Journal of Dermatology
7.4 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Food Chemistry
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology, B
5.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Current Science
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Soft Matter
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
5.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process has been of help in improving the formal quality of data.
Nature Climate Change
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: It is a very quick, very thorough review process and I was very impressed by it all at every stage
Gender and Society
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Scientific Reports
3.4 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Accepted
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: my manuscript didnot undergo review
Veterinary Journal
2.0 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was to.
Anaerobe
3.6 weeks
38.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
52.1 weeks
78.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Accepted
Interacting with Computers
14.0 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews took a bit of time, but the feedback from all three reviewers as well as the editor was of high quality - thorough and helpful. Furthermore, the publication process after the paper was accepted was very efficient.
Nationalities Papers
3.6 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The speed and the quality of the review process was excellent.
Danish Journal of Geography
2.0 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
PLoS ONE
14.0 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Journal of Marine Systems
10.9 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: First revision took a bit of time, but the reviews were fair and helpful. The manuscript was accepted rapidly after corrections were made.
Journal of Geometry and Physics
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
Motivation: We sent the paper to the editor for the special issue, Prof. Eva Miranda, and has been fast and serious in the whole process