Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Wood Science
5.0 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
PLoS ONE
13.3 weeks
39.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
New England Journal of Medicine
16.9 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
3
Accepted
Biochemical Journal
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: After about a month, I emailed the journal several times about progress of the review. The editorial office was very responsive and polite, but they kept promising that the review would be finished the following week, until it was more than 10 weeks letter. It was very frustrating.
Journal of Biological Chemistry
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: I appreciate the rapid review of JBC. That is why I gave them a 4. I am a little concerned with the reviewers. Sometimes the reviews are reasonable and sometimes they are not. It feels like the reviewers are selected randomly and may or may not have appropriate expertise for the submitted manuscript based on their responses.
Bioscience Reports
15.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: I contacted the journal after a while. They were always responsive and very polite. Otherwise, I would have given them a 1. After they were contacted, they promised that the review would be done next week, and the next week after that. They asked me to be patient. It was extremely frustrating. I do not know any lab that can afford to wait more than 15 weeks for a manuscript to be reviewed. Their delays ended up causing me problems with my grants and with the university.
Fish and Fisheries
7.7 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Smooth process. Both reviewers had few comments, so hard to assess quality of review based on these.
Environmental Biology of Fishes
9.9 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Marine and Freshwater Research
9.0 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review and editorial process was fair. It took a long time from acceptance until a pre-print version was available at the journal's website; the reason was apparently that they had a lot of papers accepted which takes some time to process...
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected due to "some important problems" identified by reviewers. The editor sent the review reports, but one of them just referred to the attached PDF with comments. This, allegedly, contained information about the important problems, but was not forwarded to us. We sent a request to recieve this attachment to the editor, but never heard back from him.
PeerJ
3.7 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fair review process. Partly open review. Very helpful staff, and good copy-editing process.
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Planetary and Space Science
12.0 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Archive of Applied Mechanics
8.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Phytochemical Analysis
2.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very reasonabvle reviews, positive but critical. Helped to improved and focus the paper. The editor was very keen in obtaining graphics and figures of high quality and in a very specific way, which actually imporved the presentation. Happy with it and will submit more work to PCA
Food Chemistry
n/a
n/a
69 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They took a couple of moths to decide that did not fit the scope of the journal.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
9.1 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Computer Graphics Forum
13.7 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers gabev valuable insights to improve the quality of the paper and the production team was very helpful when preparing the final version for publishing.
Nature
4.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Andean Geology
48.6 weeks
48.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
Andean Geology
54.7 weeks
54.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of South American Earth Sciences
22.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Ameghiniana
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of South American Earth Sciences
14.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Text and Talk
64.9 weeks
65.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: While the reviews were detailed and helpful, the process took way too long, and the lack of progress wasn't communicated. The typesetting done by the publisher was terrible, introducing a range of errors after the proof stage.
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory
20.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: Reviews were very short, two of them consisted of just one paragraph. The reviewers didn't seem to really have read the manuscript carefully.
Languages in Contrast
9.3 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Professional editorial staff, swift review process with decent reviews, some of which have really read the manuscript properly, and quick publication.
Applied Linguistics
25.9 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: Given the length of the review process, the reviews were of low quality, some of them just stating typographical errors, and one was just a few sentences long. The editor himself, it has to be said, has provided the most detailed feedback and thus made a great effort to make up for the disappointing reviews.
The typesetters introduced some errors at critical points in the manuscript. The article appeared swiftly as an online first publication but it seems to take around two years until it will actually appear in an issue.
Journal of Proteome Research
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor explained what was wrong about the manuscript, and indicated another companion journal to be considered for submitting the paper.
Proteome Science
4.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good automated system for submitting paper, quick review process with useful comments of reviewers
SAGE Open
25.3 weeks
36.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although many of the reviewers`contributions were very accurate and positive, helping me improve my article, one of the reviewer seemed rather picky. Nevertheless, I tried to overcome any obstacles on the way and accepted to respond to their requirements, mostly because they were relevant.
Journal of Medical Systems
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Industrial Crops and Products
21.7 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
European Journal of Ageing
19.7 weeks
35.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: This review process was hard to pass, some of the comments contradictory between reviewers or between review rounds. The journal offers double-blind review, which we requested but during the review process it showed up that we as authors are not blinded and this information for authors is not valid. However, the process was still of rather high quality and helped our paper to improve. We were also enabled to prolong a period of resibmitting.
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
6.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was so quick with handling everything and the reviewer comments were extremely helpful.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Classical and Quantum Gravity
11.1 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Classical and Quantum Gravity
6.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
American Heart Journal
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Quick review process with good, usable comments of reviewers
Applied Mathematical Sciences
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast review process and a kind and available Editor