Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
25.0 weeks
33.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very useful and the reviewers read carefully the manuscript and their comments were very constructive.
7.1 weeks
11.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
21.9 weeks
26.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
17.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: It takes a long time to receive the reports of the reviewers.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: It took about a year to get this published as there were major administrative problems at the editorial office.
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The 2 reviews were contradictory. Maybe in such cases the manuscript should go to a third reviewer rather than be rejected.
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Generally pertinent reviews, they helped improve the paper
12.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
4
Rejected
Motivation: This was meant to be a contribution to a special issue, but the reviewer didn't like it. According to the reviewer there is only one valid way to measure political representation, and it isn't the one used in this paper. Being criticized for omitting information that is clearly there (figure captions, first sentence of paragraph) is never too pleasant.
6.5 weeks
9.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
4.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Editors were helpful and courteous, which was very pleasing.
4.6 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
5 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Roughly 50% of the initial reviewer's comments were data we had on hand but were hoping to publish as a follow-up article as the model system was slightly different and the overall message could have been spun to incorporate a much broader audience; however, in the end the addition of this data made for a more complete story and probably a higher appeal for the smaller, target audience of the journal. Another 20% required the generation of completely new data sets which took quite some time and in only cases do I feel added to the completeness of the story. The final 30% were minor editorial changes that mirrored the preferences of the reviewers.
5.4 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The initial review took longer than I was used to, but the Reviewer's comments were spot on and helped us to notice some of the areas where our discussion was lacking. Additionally, at the suggestion of the reviewers, we were able to add another figure that helped to round out the story. The resubmission and decision were super fast.
1.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Everything moved very quickly as the reviewer comments were things that we had somewhat expected may be questioned. Comments were mostly minor but extremely helpful.
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
Motivation: I found the electronic submission system to be clear and well laid out, without unnecessary clutter.
All my dealings with the editor were quick, professional, and polite.
4.0 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
1.9 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The editor claimed that he rejected the manuscript taking account of the reviewers' views. However, the reviewers' reports were very short and gave no substantial reasons why it had to be rejected. So the decision came as a surprise since the editor, in his rejection letter, attached his chapter in press suggesting I read it and understand the objective of this journal. This comment alluded that my manuscript, from the very beginning, did not fall within the scope of the journal. Then the editor should have rejected and returned the manuscript at the outset. It was just waste of time.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
36.1 weeks
36.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
Motivation: I think soliciting a paper for a volume, having the authors wait for 8 month, and then deciding not to put together the volume is highly unprofessional (the only clear reason that I was given explicitly was that "they were busy"). We wasted more than 8 month for this. I would never deal with this journal again.
17.1 weeks
28.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: A very well handled journal with methodical reading and substantial comments for improvement.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
26.0 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: too long time getting a reply from the editor following submission and revision
15.4 weeks
40.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: After submitting the revised version in November 2013, we got contacted by the journal on 15-01-2014. The editor had noted that a large portion of reviewer 1's comments were excluded from the decicision letter of 31-08-2013. He attached the full comments of reviewer 1 and asked for a detailed response to these comments, as soon as possible.
We submitted the second revised version of the paper on 27-01-2014.
As such, due to the journal's mismanagement the whole proces lasted at least a few months more.

I couldn't specify this particular process in the questions above.
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Very quick and efficient review process.
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
56.9 weeks
56.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
19.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Given the reviews (one said to accept it right away), I felt that immediate rejection was a harsh decision. It seems really difficult to be invited for an R&R for this journal.
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: Only one reviewer. The reviewer didn't like the investigated Intervention and therefore rejected the manuscript, despite no criticism on study methodology. The review did not lead to an improvement of the manuscript.
5.0 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: High quality review by 3 reviewers which improved the manuscript substantially.