Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Neuroimmunology
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion
21.7 weeks
30.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very qualified and encouraging comments from the reviewers and especially the editor.
Clinical Infectious Diseases
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: At least it was speedy!
PLoS ONE
12.0 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: Change of Editors between submissions. Very slow: was not sent for review for at least a month and needed prompting by email to get etc.
Journal of Neuroendocrinology
4.1 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast, easy, painless process. Highly recommended.
Journal of Neuroendocrinology
4.0 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Irrigation and Drainage
22.9 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Drawn back
Motivation: Overall, the reviews were fair and highlighted some aspects of the paper that could be improved in order to make it stronger. However, while the senior editor and one of the reviewers were fair in their comments and assessment of the paper, the other reviewer was unduly harsh and critical.
Tuberculosis
9.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Strong Editorial decision making despite intermediate quality reviews.
Nature Chemical Biology
5.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Cortex
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: We lost too much time with this revision process (without positive results!)
Cell
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor wrote a nice letter. They were unsure how 'interesting' our story was: so it was sent for 'informal external review' to one expert. That expert suggested rejection, so the paper was not sent for formal review. Though disappointing, it was at least decent to have had the Editor consider our ms carefully.
Environmental Conservation
19.7 weeks
54.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Although the revision process took some time, the editors were very helpful in every aspect, for example they answered my questions immediately and connected me directly with one reviewer to discuss some complex issues of the revision.
PeerJ
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were relatively fast, and especially the comments by the editor were very good.
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Delay too long in obtaining the decision of editors
Agricultural Water Management
n/a
n/a
83 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
15.2 weeks
16.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were of very low quality, we did submit an appeal but after almost 4 months of waiting for an answer we withdraw it
Assessment
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This is the reason given for immediate rejection of the manuscript:

"Although it is quite clear that a great deal of effort and thinking went into your study, unfortunately, I find that is (sic) not suitable for publication in Assessment."
Assessment
11.4 weeks
38.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Many good points made in reviews that improved the manuscript, but the overall process took almost 2 years with 4 rounds of review. At the same time, the journal published other papers fairly quickly that clearly were not held to the same standard. Unevenness in the rigor of review and overly picky requirements by some reviewers/editors seems like a problem.
Ethnic and Racial Studies
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was quite constructive and identified how the paper should be improved. The other one was picking on minor things, but the editor suggested we consider the former one's comments -- which we'll do. Given the comments we got, I'm mostly disappointed with our not spotting these weaknesses; the handling of the manuscript was fair.
Journal of Psychiatric Research
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Drawn back
Motivation: Reviewers did not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript. Their directions for changes indicated that they did not understand the appropriate statistical methods for the study conducted.
Cortex
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Rejected
Motivation: The referee's suggestion was not so negative, but the Editor decided to reject the manuscript on the basis of her/his comments (just 1 referee).
Neuropsychologia
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: I was not agree with a few of the referees' ideas, but they worked in a reasonable amount of time.
Neuropsychologia
5.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nature Communications
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
European Journal of Neuroscience
10.7 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The entire review process has taken a really long time
PeerJ
2.0 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and correct review precess
Brain Stimulation
1.3 weeks
1.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review process.
Laterality
15.9 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: A slow review process, but useful to improve the quality of the manuscript
Frontiers in Psychology
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Positive experience. I have to specify that we were invited to submt the manuscript for a special issue.
Behavioural Brain Research
1.4 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review process!
PLoS ONE
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Fast review process. Reviewers were experts in the field.
Physical Review Accelerators and Beams
17.6 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Medical Internet Research
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Thorough peer- review process. Manuscript greatly improved through the process.
I would recommend submitting to the journal
Games and Culture
21.7 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process greatly improves the quality of the paper. But sometimes the editor should send the paper to suitable candidate to review, but it is always a challenge.
Physical Review Accelerators and Beams
10.1 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer quality was excellent, but the process was slow.
Emerging Infectious Diseases
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick and professional review
Biomaterials
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I think the decision was a bit too drastic. Perhaps a proper review process would have help to improve the manuscript and its content. The positive point is that the decision took only a few days.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
5.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I found the entire process with this journal timely and reasonable. Although we had a positive outcome for the paper, if we had not had such an outcome, I could have easily revised and submitted elsewhere without losing much time because of their quick turnaround.