Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics
29.7 weeks
29.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer recommended the publication of the article and the second reviewer said that the topic was not suitable for the journal without any other comment.
The editor rejected the paper because the topic was not suitable for the journal.
It took 6 months to decide that the topic was not suitable for the journal.
Automatica
26.0 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Accepted
Journal of Geometric Mechanics
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Drawn back
Motivation: We had two report, one quite detailed but the suggestions of further developments were not realistic, in particular in relation with the quality of the journal. The second was quite poor.
On the other hand, the process was extremely fast.
Climate Research
12.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Applied Energy
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: There was only one reviewer commenting on the paper and he obviously did not read the paper, but at most the abstract. The reviewer rejected the paper due to a single sentence in the abstract (which was, I agree, a bad way of putting things), but he would have come to a very different conclusion if he had read the paper.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
17.1 weeks
29.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
2.9 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
7.3 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: comments of the reviewers were apprpriate and the time of handling was quite fast
Ecology Letters
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Signal Processing
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor claimed that there was no earlier work on the topic of the paper and hence considered it not fit for the journal.
IET Communications
13.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were ok
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No reason was given as to why the manuscript was not fit for the journal.
Signal, Image and Video Processing
17.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were ok.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
6.0 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
5
Accepted
Scientific Reports
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Elife
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Genome
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nucleic Acids Research
4.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Child Neurology
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Energy
8.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Energy Conversion and Management
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
BMJ Quality and Safety
n/a
n/a
113 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I emailed the editors about three months after I submitted the manuscript for information about the status. The editor emailed me back apologizing about the delayed handling of my paper. "Summer absences among reviewers and editors caused problems..". Furthermore, they obtained only two very poor quality reviews. He read my manuscript and sent it to two senior editors to look it over and "hopefully have a (favourable) decision in the coming 2 weeks or so". Two weeks later I got the dissapointing email that my manuscript was rejected after all.
Demographic Research
39.4 weeks
46.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The first review round took several months time, probably because it was difficult for the journal to find reviewers. Once reviewers were located, we iterated back and forth very quickly with revisions, and the suggestions improved the paper. Reviews were both cordial and constructive. I was very happy with the review process.
Developmental Dynamics
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Tuberculosis
6.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Plant Physiology
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
New Journal of Physics
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
11.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers comments were very useful and absolutely well-justified, thus contributing to the improvement of the paper. After paper acceptance, the editing and publication processes were very fast.
Environmental Earth Sciences
21.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Applied Radiation and Isotopes
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity
8.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Renewable Energy
10.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite fast and very useful for the paper improvement. The reviewers comments were clear and well-justified. After paper accepting, the editing process was fast and very simple.
BMC Biotechnology
11.4 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Accepted
Motivation: I felt like there were very long lag times between submission of the manuscript (initially and revised) and any communication from the journal. I wondered if perhaps the editorial board and referees were not familiar with my area of research, as the reviews were not particularly helpful, and the whole process took a very long time. It also seemed like the editor was changed between the initial submission and the revised submission of the manuscript.
PLoS ONE
6.0 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fair, the reviewers comments well considered and informed and turnaround time was reasonable.
Environment and Planning, A
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
11.7 weeks
37.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
British Poultry Science
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Editors must consider the paper as fit for reviewing or not based on the merit of the paper and not based on the corresponding authors publishing history or the country.
International Journal of Thermal Sciences
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
18.1 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: This journal is very meticulous. In addition to doing a thorough job of vetting the scientific content of my article, the editor and his staff made sure that all journal requirements were adhered to completely before accepting manuscripts for publication. And they went about the process very professionally.
Acta Politica
31.0 weeks
36.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: One of the reviewer would have liked a different paper, but the editor helped us navigate the challenge.