Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Health Policy
5.0 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Applied Clinical Informatics
11.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Having five reviewers was quite helpful. While this resulted in many comments to address, the quality and breadth of the reviewer comments helped strengthen the final submission. The overall experience will help us in future submissions.
Nature Methods
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Nature Biotechnology
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Drawn back
Motivation: go ahead man
Biological Conservation
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
npj Genomic Medicine
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
WIREs Climate Change
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: We went through an intensive review process, which greatly improved the manuscript. In the end, we were still rejected, and although the authors disagreed with the main point of the reviewer that suggested rejection, it was a careful and thought-out review. We also appreciated the input and care from the editor, who in the first round of reviews gave detailed and productive comments, after split reviews, and in the last round of review, gave a proper justification for rejection.
Cell Reports
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Gender and Society
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
Acta Materialia
10.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review timeline of Acta Materialia is excruciatingly slow. Other than that, the editors and the reviewers are very fair in accommodating our responses to the final version of the manuscript.
ChemSusChem
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: After the first round of review, the article was rejected. Although one of the reviewers' comments was helpful and well-intentioned, the other's was brief and dismissive. We spent over two months revising and expanding the article in response to the reviewers' feedback. We then submitted a revised version with detailed responses, and the article was finally accepted as it is.
Nature Communications
7.4 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Clinical Interventions in Aging
14.1 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: The publisher provides a clear timeline to help authors keep track of the manuscript's status. The submission interface is easy to use.
Journal of Information Science
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Anatomical Record
6.1 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very responsive editors and excellent review process.
Current Biology
5.9 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Our handling editor was very responsive and extremely comprehensive. I think all the review reports were also of good quality and I am very happy with the feedbacks we received on this manuscript which truly strengthen our findings.
Nature Structural and Molecular Biology
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Work, Employment and Society
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
American Sociological Review
15.0 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Turnaround time for reviews was much faster than expected, especially given the extremely high quality of the reviews from scholars who were clearly extremely knowledgeable in the field.
The editors were also extremely helpful and provided much guidance, they even edited the paper themselves.
Molecular Ecology
17.3 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Molecular Ecology
8.1 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Freshwater Biology
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The review process took a long time; the reason for the reviewer's proposed rejection was not fully understood.
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Accepted
Biological Psychiatry
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Editor and reviewers were quick in their decision. The manuscript was rejected because the editor judged its topic to be too preliminar to perform a SR, but reviewers' comments were overall positive. Despite the rejection, a good experience.
Journal of Medical Internet Research
8.0 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers provide thorough and comprehensive insights into the study topic and help strengthen the study for publication.
International Journal of Epidemiology
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Acta Biomedica
6.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
International Journal of Cultural Policy
15.0 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy
4.9 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: Handling and communication concerning the manuscript were quick. However, some of the reviewer reports were unusual. The first reviewer had valuable inputs, however, at times requested additional work that would have gone far beyond the scope of the presented manuscript or which was simply not applicable/feasible for the investigated specimen. However, the second reviewer did not really seem to care about the work, as their suggestions were more of a general nature (extend discussion without specific inputs, add highlights, add a graphical abstract).
Journal of Dentistry
4.0 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
7.1 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: A quite long review period with questionable reviews.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
9.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Fast and good review, good production time.
Journal of Motor Behavior
6.5 weeks
17.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were most reasonable (and somewhat forgiving) with thankfully much attention devoted toward the theoretical aspects and strengths. The time for review was reasonable (<2 months), although there was somewhat of a delay between completion of reviews and editorial decision (approx. 2-3 weeks).
European Sociological Review
10.3 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very swift and professional handling, good communication, critical reviews with focus on the substance.
Angewandte Chemie
2.1 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Handling at every stage was quick. We got 2 reviewers. One of them clearly understood the scope of the paper and offered to provide additional experiments that added more detail and some novelty to the manuscript. This was done. The other reviewer declared that he is specialised in another field (which is a connected field) and criticised certain details of our method. This reviewer requested to provide additional check-ups relevant for their field, which were in our opinion not needed with our subject. However, we provided the requested check-ups (none of them influenced conclusions) and the manuscript was finally accepted after another textual change.
Physical Review Letters
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Biomolecules and Biomedicine
3.9 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Accepted
Nature Nanotechnology
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: takes 4 months for external review and got rejected, too long
Advanced Materials
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editor suggested to transfer to Adv. Func. Mater. based on the reviewers' reports. It was fine besides the reviewing time that was more than 10 weeks.