Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
European Sociological Review
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Very fast review procedure
American Sociological Review
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Fast review procedure, which is much appreciated
Applied Mathematics Letters
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Foresight
4.7 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Accepted
Menopause
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: We acquired constructive comments from three reviewers and the process was fast.
European Journal of Population
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
3.9 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Information and Management
17.3 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Computational Neuroscience
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: -the revision duration was correct
-the reviewers arguments to reject the paper were acceptable
Journal of Phycology
20.1 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Drawn back
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
Chemistry and Ecology
4.1 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Phycologia
7.7 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Phycology
5.0 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Maturitas
0.7 weeks
0.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process was very effective. However, we would have appreciated a little longer time to make the suggested corrections (we had 4 weeks).
PLoS ONE
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The review took five month
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
The Gerontologist
6.6 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Long review time due to changes in the editorial board. Needed to contact the editor after which the decision was received in two weeks. Communication with the editor was 5/5.
Biostatistics
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: Some reviews in favor and some against it. The quality of review comment were not upto the mark as expected. It seemed that some reviewer have not even read the manuscript and just have given their review by primary quick view.
Applied Physics Letters
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very quick decision. Though the editor said that the manuscript does not meet the timeliness requirement for rapid publication in this Letters Journal.
Applied Surface Science
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer comments were indicting that the reviewer have not gone through the manuscript well enough and have given his/her advise for shake of formality.
Plasmonics
8.6 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very good and constructive reviews. I did further deep study and added more relevant information which I think added more value to the manuscript.
Plasmonics
10.1 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Review comments were good and indicated that the reviewers were good in the field and have gone through the manuscript thoroughly.
Elife
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: eLife took 25 days to first decision, although they advertise 7 days with no mention of the variance. The reason they gave for the delay was that the paper "was not easy to judge". If that is the case, I would have greatly appreciated that they either state that the 7 day figure applies to papers that are "easy to judge" or make the variance in first decision times public. That could have saved me (and them) 25 valuable days.
Journal of Immunology
21.7 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Fluid Phase Equilibria
5.0 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Took less than two months to see the manuscript accepted. The reviews were not really helpful, but the reviewers were not aggressive, so in general the experience was smooth. One of the reviewers has insistently forced us to remove some hypothesis from the manuscript. This is not the reviewer's job, strictly speaking. Overall, the editor just proxied reviewers reports to the authors. Not a super pleasant experience, but not a headache as well.
Journal of Wood Science
3.7 weeks
57.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Wood Science
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems
2.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent reviewers and fast responses.
Wood Material Science and Engineering
16.1 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
BioResources
7.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products
10.7 weeks
25.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Journal of Management
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: I appreciated the effort and time the reviewers put in to point out some limitations of the manuscript. This will surely be helpful in revising it and submitting it elsewhere.
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Forest Research
41.2 weeks
42.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
0
Accepted
Journal of Alloys and Compounds
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: From the two of reviewers, the first reviewer gave valuable scientific comments, it is so encouraging to extend my knowledge. I really pay my sincere thanks to first reviewer.
But.... the second reviewer even he doesn't know how to comment on the review papers, and in my opinion he doesn't know subject and finally he recommended not suitable for publication.
The editor must have sent it to another reviewer, but he did not do that.