Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Neurotoxicology and Teratology
5.9 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Toxicon
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer made brief questions as if they knew the process that we have adopted in our research, after sending a clarification by our research group, we received acceptance.
International Journal of Tourism Research
26.7 weeks
36.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Animal Feed Science and Technology
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Journal of Aging and Health
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Health Affairs
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Vocational Behavior
1.4 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick review. Highly recommended.
Journal of Immunology
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Drawn back
Biomass and Bioenergy
0.9 weeks
1.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Good questions raised by referees;
Manuscript improved by revision process.

Criticism: revision process very long, it lasted more than 7 months
Inhalation Toxicology
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Journal of Applied Polymer Science
18.9 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: There are a short time between accepted manuscript and on line publication
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology
6.9 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Clear requests by reviewers and fast editorial process.
Journal of Communication Disorders
9.3 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: Overall, the review process was timely. The reviewer comments from the first round seemed to lack concrete suggestions for improvement, although the associate editor made an effort to interpret some comments/opinions and rephrase them as suggestions for changes to the manuscript, which was appreciated. The second round of reviews, although received quickly, did not at all acknowledge the changes made to the manuscript except to say that the study findings are not significant enough to publish in the journal. Frankly, if this is the reason for rejection, I would rather the manuscript be rejected outright on the first round so I would be free to submit elsewhere.
Global Change Biology
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were really helpful and encouraging, but the editor rejected the paper due to lack of impact.
Journal of Vibroengineering
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of the American Medical Association
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Medical Internet Research
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: Very poor process. Only one review from a reviewer with overly narrow focus. Did not give fair evaluation of overall merit. Editor did not get alternate reviews or supplement with own evaluation.
ICES Journal of Marine Science
4.1 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough reviews from knowledgeable reviewers; Quick decisions by editor; No delays at any point in process. Also very quick from acceptance to proofs & online publication.
Small Scale Forestry
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was highly nourished by the executive editor as he suggested some changes in the paper at the first manuscript. After that it was sent to the reviewers. The reviewers were very kind to find the real bottlenecks of the research and write-up in the manuscripts and helped how to change the document. I believe it gradually teaches the researchers.
British Journal of Surgery
8.1 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Sensory Studies
16.6 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Public Administration Review
13.0 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
European Food Research and Technology
4.1 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick reviewing process. Short time between resubmitting the manuscript and editor decision.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
9.3 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Despite the negative response, reviews and comments by the editor were detailed and thorough and the reviewing process was quite fast.
Property Management
6.6 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: quick turnaround; responsive editor; useful comments made by the reviewers; very well managed journal
Current Pharmaceutical Design
7.1 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Cell Communication and Signaling
6.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editors and editorial staff was responsive and relatively prompt. There were a few delays in review due to the fact that it was submitted just before holiday season and probably because one of the reviewers took longer than expected.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
English for Specific Purposes
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor and reviewers worked hard to help me work with polishing my manuscript and speeding its publication
Computer Assisted Language Learning
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
European Political Science Review
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
18.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
5 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was sent to 3 reviewers first. The reports were largely positive. However, the editor was not happy about the quality of these reports. So he decided to send the paper to 2 more reviewers, who later had negative opinion on the topic (largely not how the topic was handled by us) of the paper. Got a rejection at last. However, the entire process was relatively fast.
Current Sociology
8.9 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
European Review of Agricultural Economics
22.0 weeks
29.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: There was some slight delay in the first review round, only because one of the reviewers didn't submit the report. However, the review report I got was of great value to improve quality of the paper. The delay in publishing the paper after getting acceptance from the editor was bit disappointing (1 year), but possibly because many papers are in the queue.
Mechanisms of Development
3.6 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
8.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is excellent. I had fast replay by editor. The review notes were detailed and very useful in order to improve the manuscrit.