Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Small 4.1
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2021
Small 10.9
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: The review process was a bit longer than in ACS or RSC, but the Editor was helpful and tried to accelerate it. The reviewers were fair, constructive and they helped improve the paper. I will consider this journal as a publication platform in the future as well and I recommend it for others, too.
Small n/a n/a 39.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Small n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: Two days after submission we detected a small error and asked the editor to hold the manuscript before sending it to the reviewers, as we understood their evaluation would benefit from having the corrections already applied.
The manuscript was rejected within 24h of the resubmission, "Small receives many more submissions than we can possibly publish."
The editor offered, however, transfer to two of their sister journals with lower impact factor.
Small n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: The desk rejection took over 1 week. In my experience this is necessarily long. Their reasoning was fine, but I had assumed it had gone to reviewers when I hadn't heard anything form them in a week.
Small n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: We were offered a transfer option to a suitable journal, but it took over a week for a desk rejection, which is a pretty long time in my experience.
Small n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Very long time for the first inspection, while, from the time point the manuscript was submitted, the only status shown on the website was "under consideration". An internal transfer to a completely different journal was proposed, although the scope of the new journal did not fit the manuscript's topic at all. It is, therefore, highly possible that the editor did not check/read the article.
Small n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Other suitable journal was suggested. The suggested journal did not fit to the topic of our manuscript.
Small n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Small n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Fast editorial turnaround, and good suggestions of other more suitable journals.