Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Nature
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society
27.7 weeks
29.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The journal has a very good automated system of submitting papers. It was quite easy to submit and the process (submitting-acceptance) did not take too long.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology
8.7 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Physics of Plasmas
2.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Physical Review Letters
2.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Laser and Particle Beams
2.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Optics Express
2.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Toxicon
10.4 weeks
30.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Inverse Problems
n/a
n/a
107 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editorial board member completely missed the point in the paper. The journal also did not reveal the name of the editorial board member. Even though it was not sent for external review, the journal did not provide any name of a person who had handled the paper, except for the secretarial assistant who manages the emails. Why it took almost 4 months for a non-review is another question.
Laser and Particle Beams
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Physics of Plasmas
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
6.0 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process of the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology was reasonably fast and efficient. Comments made by reviewers were constructive. The revised manuscript was promptly accepted.
Food Chemistry
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Open Linguistics
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers were relatively fast and quite helpful. Verdict was 'minor revisions'. Time from acceptance to publication was longer than expected given the review process, and working with the typesetters was challenging (no direct contact possible, and corrections on proofs are not always handled systematically).
Discourse Studies
2.4 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The initial review was high quality, though we were surprised there was only one reviewer. It included critical comments on the overall paper as well as proposed minor edits to the ms text, so clearly the reviewer had spent a lot of time. The editor just forwarded the review without adding any comments of their own. Resubmission took over a year due to external circumstances; after that, acceptance came lightning fast, without the review round we were expecting. Again, the editor had no comments except to say that this version was fine. The paper did improve a lot thanks to the initial review, but still it feels weird to skip the second review round (if I had been the original reviewer I would've wanted to see the response to reviewers and the edits made). But perhaps at this journal, "revise and resubmit" can mean anything from minor revisions to almost rejected, and our ms ended up more towards the former end of the scale.
Energy
8.0 weeks
36.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
Motivation: The Journal is very valuable and the reviews are deep and detailed. The only not good thing I found was that the final acceptance process is quite low, but, in general, I consider the Journal as high performance.
International Journal of Cardiology
3.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick review process. Good reviewer comments.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
12.9 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process has been detailed and quite fast.
The Editor is always available for all communications and information.
BMC Public Health
0.7 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript in hand was a study protocol already approved by external reviewers during the funding stage. In this way, the review process by BMC Public Health was very quick and strait to the point, but the time between acceptance and publication was relatively long (6 weeks) when compare with the review process.
Psychologia
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Psychologia
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
International Journal of Neural Systems
16.6 weeks
24.4 weeks
n/a
6 reports
4
3
Accepted
Seismological Research Letters
8.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Biological Conservation
25.1 weeks
33.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Accepted
Motivation: It seemed that there was one negative peer reviewer who had misunderstood some of the study design, of the 3 reviewers the only one to do so, and there were a number of suggestions that did not seem relevant to the authors.
Work and Stress
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Human Resource Management Journal
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Scientific Reports
11.6 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: review was too long ; ms sent on 28th september 2015; accepted as completed only on 15th october and first decision only on 04th january 2015
Even the evaluation was very long : 6 weeks for an acceptance without additional corrections
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part C: Toxicology and Pharmacology
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Learning and Individual Differences
21.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Langmuir
4.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Physical Chemistry, C
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was clear, rather quick, and properly handled by the editors.
The referee comments were appropriate and helped us.
The overall duration of hte revision process was absolutely acceptable.
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
22.4 weeks
30.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were useful and quite to the point. The communication with the Editor was perfect, but it took some time to receive the reviews and the decision.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
24.1 weeks
56.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Most of the reviews were useful and they have improved the paper, but the process of receiving the reviews and the decision was inexcusably slow. Communication with the editor could have been better, and the editor could have been more engaged in the process. One reviewer had unreasonable comments, and we feel that the editor should have stepped in after our rebuttal. This has considerably delayed the publication for no reason. After acceptance, typesetting by Elsevier induced some errors and it was also slow. CEUS is a good journal, but our experience with this paper was bad.
Climatic Change
25.7 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fairly good review process, with acceptable time between submission and acceptance.
Global Change Biology
4.6 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Everything went very smoothly, the review was fast and efficient.
European Journal of Forest Research
13.1 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review was constructive with plenty of suggestions to improve the manuscript's quality. The time to handle the manuscript was fair.
International Journal of Medical Informatics
21.7 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review comments were good.
The editorial process was fast