Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Separation Science
3.7 weeks
57.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation
8.7 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I have fixed several bugs that existed in the original version of the paper's text.
According to referee's notes I have corrected the Introduction of the paper and added
a few additional references in the bibliography.
Language
33.3 weeks
33.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Accepted
Motivation: Editor noted in his acceptance that the paper was "accepted as is, a rarity at this journal". Consequently we didn't get to see the peer review reports, even though the paper had spent over seven months in the review process.
Chemical Engineering and Technology
10.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers' comments were contradictory.
Industrial Marketing Management
11.6 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Tropical Forest Science
17.4 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Canadian Medical Association Journal
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Elife
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process was very smooth and professional. The editors were very willing to work with you to get the manuscript accepted. They were also very good at keeping me up-to-date with where the manuscript was at in the review process. Everything was very transparent.
Heredity
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: Three reviewers judged very differently about the manuscript, one suggested minor changes and made valueable comments, one was intermediate, suggested major revisions, but from the report it appears that this was not a specialist in the field, the third referee recommended rejection, although there was only one major point that was criticized. We wrote a rebuttal to the points raised by the referees and asked for a resubmission, which was allowed, although the initial rejection. We then re-worked the manuscript including many new analyses.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Drawn back
American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
2.6 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewer turnaround was very efficient. Statistical review was very thorough.
European Journal of Nutrition
13.6 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
American Journal of Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Affective Disorders
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
BMC Psychiatry
7.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
6.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: In general, the review process was OK. The total duration was reasonable given this field of research.
Optics and Laser Technology
6.5 weeks
6.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Kyklos
6.9 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Quick and transparent process; comments from referees and editor were very helpful to improve the paper
Nature
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Science
n/a
n/a
31 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Heredity
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: immediate rejection that took them 25 days!
Optical Fiber Technology
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of International Relations and Development
14.3 weeks
77.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
0
Rejected
Motivation: I had to wait more than one year for a decision after the first review round.
All the comments by the reviewers were addressed in the second round but the editors decided to send to the reviewers again. One of the reviewers rejected the paper using completely new arguments that had never been raised before referring to points that were in the original paper.
Sleep Medicine
6.7 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Biological Control
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Communications in Mathematical Physics
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics
34.1 weeks
38.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Astroparticle Physics
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
Astronomy and Astrophysics
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
British Journal of Developmental Psychology
6.7 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
JAMA Internal Medicine
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
JAMA Internal Medicine
Immediately accepted after 6.1 weeks
Accepted (im.)
RSC Advances
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Neurophysiology
7.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process seemed fair and the reviewer comments were helpful, in general.
PeerJ
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fast process.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
5.6 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was efficient and fair.
Journal of Psychiatric Research
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: Extremely slow processing.
I got the decision 17.9 weeks later AFTER TWO AUTHOR QUERIES.