Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
PLoS Biology
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS Pathogens
5.6 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The first round of reviews was fair and mostly constructive, the last round however was based on a reviewer who missed the point and required unnecessary work. The editorial team, otherwise very helpful and fair, should have stepped in at that point. In summary however, the manuscript was handled mostly fair and did improve by the review process.
PLoS Pathogens
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Drawn back
PLoS Biology
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
10.7 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: a bit slow, but thorough, fair reviews
The Lancet Psychiatry
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Medical Systems
4.6 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
IEEE Sensors Journal
15.1 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
6.6 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Environmental Research Letters
15.4 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were helpful and suggested several important improvements to our paper. The review process was a bit slow for a 'letters' journal (>3 months) but not too bad. After submitting revisions, a decision was made quickly.
Geophysical Research Letters
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were received quickly and offered several suggestions for improvements, which we made before submitting to a different journal.
eNeuro
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was judged to preliminary by the journal and was rejected in reasonable delay.
Scientific Reports
7.1 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer did not want our paper to be accepted and the editor did not send our manuscript to another reviewer. Thus the paper was rejected after months of revision.

Each time the paper is submites, there is a the quality check that take two weeks before the paper is send to reviewers.
European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology
37.3 weeks
46.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Journal of Clinical Virology
9.3 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Signal Processing: Image Communication
13.0 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers have done valuable comments that strengthened the paper.
European Urology
Immediately accepted after 4.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I sent my article as a letter to the editor, so it does not need an external reading
Journal of Applied Spectroscopy
21.9 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
6.6 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
European Journal of Mass Spectrometry
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Biochemistry
4.3 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Plant Disease
Immediately accepted after 3.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
International Journal of Climatology
13.7 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
RSC Advances
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It is obvious the editor does not have enough knowledge in this area! last year I have published a lesser work of mine in this journal, and now I have received this comment.
Electrochemistry Communications
2.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Vocations and Learning
16.6 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
Biodegradation
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nutrition Reviews
24.0 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The time it took was exceptionally long (24 weeks), and resulted in only 1 reviewer report. The editor apologized for the long waiting time, but it still was a major drawback for this paper.
BMJ Open
16.9 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Although the manuscript concerned a protocol article (which was clearly indicated int he submission process), the review process handled it as if it were a regular article manuscript. we therefore wrote a rebuttal, which was successful, but altogether it took 10 months from initial submission until acceptance, without delay from our side. In addition to this long wait, the Journal was not able to find appropriate reviewers from the mental health field.
Sustainability
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
2.3 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was clear, from the editor instructions to the referee comments.
RSC Advances
2.9 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Comparative Political Studies
21.1 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Hard to beat insufficient enthusiasm. The reviewers suggested ways to take the manuscript into different directions, but nothing wrong with it.
Behavioral and Brain Functions
8.9 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Swiss Journal of Psychology
51.1 weeks
51.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: 11 months for a decision, only one review and one major comment.
International Studies Quarterly
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process was very fast. From the comments provided by the editorial board, I got the impression that the manuscript was read thoroughly. A clear reason for rejection was provided. The editorial board also suggested alternatives for publication.
PLoS ONE
5.4 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Nice and professional experience overall. It took 2 weeks to find the editor, but the reviewers returned their reports very quickly. The reports were carefully prepared and they were helpful, better than what I usually I get from specialised journals and conferences in my field. I did not have much interation with the editor, but he was efficient in the process with quick turnarounds. I like the policy that they don't judge the novelty and impact of the work, so in theory a technically and scientifically sound paper cannot be rejected due to the subjective view of a reviewer and/or editor. Once the paper was accepted it was published quicker than my previously published work with Elsevier and other major well-known publishers. I did not give a perfect score because there were some small annoying things: for figures they accept only ancient TIF and EPS formats and the process of their submission is tedious, the LaTeX template supports only rudimentary citing (no \citet command), the manuscript has to be submitted without figures included (which makes it difficult to read and it's non-sense), and the publisher doesn't send the proof of the typeset PDF to authors before publication (so the final published paper may contain errors; mine luckily didn't have any errors but I can imagine errors may happen). Furthermore, once the paper was accepted, the production department returned it to me for very minor things they could fix themselves in a few minutes. Overall, in my case PLOS ONE gave an impression of a serious, professional, well organised and efficient journal and I think that I will submit to PLOS ONE again.
2.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Bioinformatics
27.7 weeks
49.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
0
Rejected
Motivation: The initial reviews were unscientific (i.e.: based on personal experience and opinion without citing a single reference). Those reviews citing references wanted those ones to be cited in our manuscript ....
We rejected all those statements with supporting data and still got similar reviews in the second round.

The editor, even if not expert in the field should at least try to read the reviews and reject those obviously bad.

The last round of reviews after a long complaint letter removed the problematic reviewer and added new ones. These new reviewers wanted a comparison with a tool that is similar and was published in the mean time (submitted after our submission and accepted after a few weeks ... tool doesn't work by the way). One review was without any text and merely selected some grading criteria not visible to us.

Finally, a rejection was based on 2 positive reviews in the first round and one negative (by a reviewer that should have been disregarded due to quality of review) and additional 2 OK reviews, and one without any text.

This process is completely intransparent and I stopped reviewing for that journal and will not submit there again.