Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
British Journal of General Practice
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The peer reviewed journal is serious and rapid.
European Sociological Review
16.6 weeks
41.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent and rather fast reviews
Journal of Neuroscience
3.1 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Organic Process Research and Development
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review process has taken 4 months time from submission to publication. It needs to be improved.
Work, Employment and Society
14.1 weeks
36.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Scientia Pharmaceutica
5.7 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: publication process is quite slow after acceptance. It needs to be improved.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing
26.0 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Otherwise high-quality editorial process, although very long and laborious. Editor-in-Chief was very fair and understanding, but still - much too long process.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research
15.3 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast ad professional review
Scientia Pharmaceutica
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: publication process is quite slow
Quality and Quantity
n/a
n/a
68 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Considering that the review process took almost 3 months and no external reviewer process was done, as well as no comments from editor came, I consider this as inappropriate and inefficient
Scientia Pharmaceutica
5.7 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: review process is good, but publication process is slow
Public Opinion Quarterly
14.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Rejected
Motivation: There were two acceptance (revise&resumbmit) and one rejection, so the editor could give us chance (also considering that the paper was highly published at the end). Nevertheless, the reviews were of a good quality
Scientia Pharmaceutica
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The over all rating of this journal is good in quality, but publication process needs to be improved
Organic Letters
2.0 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
European Journal of Oncology Nursing
25.6 weeks
55.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process was a long process, with no information about the status of the manuscript in between.
The comments of the reviewers were of good quality and allowed us to improve the manuscript, which was very positive.
Patient Education and Counseling
6.0 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Overall a pleasant review process; good contact with the editor; swift responses to inquiries. Reviews were relevant and led to substantial improvement of the manuscript.
Information Systems Journal
26.0 weeks
58.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Knowledge Management Research and Practice
26.0 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Nano Energy
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Accepted
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
3.3 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The journal is very speedy in giving feedback and the reviews are of high standing.
Linguistics and Philosophy
17.4 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Expert Review of Vaccines
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I was able to suggest the reviewers, and this has been honoured by the editor. I have not contacted the reviewers, they were suggested based on their expertise and international standing. The reviews had been very detailed, constructive and added a great deal of quality to the final version of the paper.
RSC Advances
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Water Resources Research
10.1 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Good, constructive review process. Knowledgeable reviewers who obviously took the time to read and understand the paper and provide useful comments which definitely improved the quality of the final accepted paper.
Climate Research
6.6 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Good process. Efficient and clear.
Biological Conservation
7.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Science
8.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Soil and Tillage Research
13.0 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: AS the paper was sent to a different group of referees some contradictions between the suggestions made by the first and second group occurred
European History Quarterly
31.6 weeks
31.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
International Journal of Plasticity
6.7 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Allergy
13.1 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
4
Accepted
British Medical Journal
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: the review process could be finished in a much shorter period, especially after the first review round. Also the time required from submission to first decision was a bit long.
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
1.4 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Trends in Genetics
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: In my opinion, the quality of the review process is dictated by the availability of the editors for communication. In this regard, Trends in Genetics was great. I was kept informed of the process of the manuscript as it went through the process. I had one clarifying question about a comment from a reviewer that was handled quickly. Great process
Chemical Vapor Deposition
3.6 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted