Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Antioxidants and Redox Signaling
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.
Developmental Neuroscience
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.
PLoS ONE
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.
ACS Chemical Neuroscience
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry
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.
Green Chemistry
4.0 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
1.9 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Journal of Multicultural Discourses
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.
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Canadian Journal of Linguistics
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.
System
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.
NeuroImage
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
mAbs
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
Energy Policy
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Energy Efficiency
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
Landscape and Urban Planning
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.
European Planning Studies
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: Very quick and efficient review process.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Macromolecular Rapid Communications
2.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Chemical Communications
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Dalton Transactions
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Drustvena Istrazivanja
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
European Sociological Review
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Sociology of Education
56.9 weeks
56.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Rejected
Journal of Research on Adolescence
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Networks
19.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
Sociology of Education
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.
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
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.
Annals of Surgery
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.
Lancet
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Intercultural Education
14.3 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Liquid Crystals
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Brazilian Journal of Physics
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Croatian Review of Rehabilitation Research
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Social Epistemology
14.6 weeks
27.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
3
Accepted
Perspectives in Science
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
International Labour Review
13.0 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Arkivoc
2.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems
39.1 weeks
41.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The impression left on me by this review process was mixed. The duration between the first submission and the first reviews was extremely long (9 months) but, once I sent the revisions, the paper was accepted two weeks after, which was a pleasant surprise. Concerning the quality of the reviews, it was also mixed : one of them was very good, bringing welcome insights, another focused only on form and had nothing of substance to contribute but was a fair assessment, while the last one read like a rant written by someone who was not familiar with the subject at hand.
Journal of Applied Entomology
6.6 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: My experience with the review process for this journal was very pleasant. I received helpful feedback in a timely manner that ultimately improved the final version of the accepted manuscript.