Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Journal of Physiology
4.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Plasmonics
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is very quick
Applied Physics A: Materials Science and Processing
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: In my opinion review process is good
Angle Orthodontist
15.2 weeks
16.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I was very impressed by their way of editing, cooperation and consultation, they give solutions to any problem that I was having for example they asked whether I would rather pay for the color figures or put in black and white and gave me some similar histological figures with black and white to see IF I AGREE with that
The process was rather fast and the comments was valuable and realistic
Such a respectful journal
Applied Physics Letters
3.0 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity
9.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Environmental Science and Technology
10.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: In the first submission (not reported here) the first editor handled the manuscript made his/her decision to reject our paper trusting only on one of the 3 reviewers' comments. I replied to the editor that her/his way to handle the review process was not the rigth way (I'm editor too) and I explained why he/she could not trust just on the comment of one reviewer who did not support his/her remarks with scentific literature references. Finally, the editorial staff made the decision to change handling reviewer and riconsider our manuscript for possible publication. This time the paper was sent to 4 new reviewers and accepted for publication after major revisions.
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review report was comprehensive. This allowed me to address the issues with the paper and so my experience was very positive with the review process.
Once, I addressed the issues the manuscript was accepted. I was very pleased with how the editor dealt with the whole review process.
International Journal of Bilingualism
5.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: In their comments, the reviewers demonstrated that they know the topic and latest tendencies in the research very well. All the comments were well-formulated, up-to-the-point and constructive.
Turkish Studies
3.0 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very quick, much quicker than we had expected. The reviewers had a broad perspective on the issue and their comments allowed us to elaborate the paper.
Science
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
6 reports
4
4
Accepted
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
Turkish Journal of Haematology
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
International Journal of Environmental Research
8.0 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Pediatric Nursing
8.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the review process was challenging but worthwhile. It helped to polish the final manuscript.
Epilepsy and Behavior
0.7 weeks
0.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
Motivation: The processing and review processes were prompt as also the Editor-in-Chief's decision.
Environmental Science and Technology
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Energy Policy
6.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
European Sociological Review
30.3 weeks
71.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
0
Accepted
Motivation: It took more than 40 weeks to get comments on the revision (plus 30 weeks for an initial decision).
European Sociological Review
44.9 weeks
64.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer reports were quite different in tone and in the revisions that were requested. Initial decision took way too long.
Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods
4.3 weeks
4.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Clinical Anatomy
30.4 weeks
30.7 weeks
n/a
10 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The Peer Review System of Clinical Anatomy is one of the best in the filed
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
3.6 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I am completely satisfied by the peer review process at Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B. The team of Editorial Office is very polite and quickly responds to any inquire (as rule at the next day). The reviews in my case were objective and thoughtful.
Climate Policy
22.0 weeks
38.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite drawn out and protracted because only one of the three original reviewers responded to the revised submission, meaning a fourth (new) reviewer had to be found. The Journal apologised for this delay and handled the matter professionally as possible considering the circumstances.
Climatic Change
n/a
n/a
41 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
PLoS ONE
6.5 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: They were very quick and give good feedback to improve the paper.
Southern Economic Journal
10.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Occupational Therapy International
30.1 weeks
30.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I am quite proud of this article. It was written by the first author, who was a doctoral student that I mentored for his PhD. The editor of the journal had difficulty finding suitable peer reviewers, as this was a proposed model for occupational therapy that had not been adequately researched. I look forward to more publications about the first author's dissertation research and his continued future research to generate more research in the field of occupational therapy.
Animal Production Science
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Current Sports Medicine Reports
Immediately accepted after 2.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Energy and Buildings
17.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The time and and quality of the process were reasonable.
Muscle and Nerve
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
6.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Journal of Applied Phycology
4.3 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I think the review process was adequate and fast enough. I consider the process was appropriate and well managed.
Energy
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Nature Materials
17.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Accepted
Science
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Algal Research
8.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process of the Algal Research Journal was very good to make the manuscript transparent for publication
Cognition
14.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: very insightful feedback on behalf of the reviewers