Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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
Journal of Phycology
20.1 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Drawn back
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
Chemistry and Ecology
4.1 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Phycologia
7.7 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Phycology
5.0 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Maturitas
0.7 weeks
0.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process was very effective. However, we would have appreciated a little longer time to make the suggested corrections (we had 4 weeks).
PLoS ONE
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The review took five month
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
The Gerontologist
6.6 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Long review time due to changes in the editorial board. Needed to contact the editor after which the decision was received in two weeks. Communication with the editor was 5/5.
Biostatistics
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)