|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|
|Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling||6.0 wks||6.3 wks||n/a||3||5 (excellent)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: This journal is a best fit of my paper and the comments from reviewers are really professional and helpful to make my paper better.|
|International Journal of Epidemiology||n/a||n/a||33.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America||5.3 wks||5.3 wks||n/a||2||1 (bad)||1 (bad)||Drawn back|
|Motivation: Two referees: one was very positive and one didn't get the points. Comments were irrelevant and flawed; yet, the editor decided to follow this referee.|
|MRS Advances||7.0 wks||7.0 wks||n/a||1||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|PLoS ONE||Drawn back before first editorial decision after 121 days||Drawn back|
|Motivation: After three months after submitting my article, I sent a query to the journal to get an update on the submission. They informed they did not have an academic editor asigned to it.
I waited another month and since I got no new updates, I asked the journal again. They still had not get an editor for the paper. I am withdrawing the article after losing four precious months.
|PLoS ONE||Drawn back before first editorial decision after 230 days||Drawn back|
|Motivation: I sent the paper to PLoS ONE, because the topic was something that would be interesting to a wide audience (it was about a linguistic analysis on Pokemon names). Since PLoS ONE takes pride in its fast turn-around time, after 3 month of silence, I sent an inquiry almost every month. Every time, they came back to me with a boiler plate email saying that "I guarantee that your manuscript is getting our full attention". After 7.5 months, I decided that what they are claiming is simply not true.|
|Materials and Design||3.6 wks||4.1 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Physiologia Plantarum||5.0 wks||11.4 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Bioresource Technology||5.0 wks||5.0 wks||n/a||2||0 (very bad)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The duration of the review, reviewers selectopn and editorial decision was short. The responce of one of the reviewers was strongly incompetent.|
|Biomass and Bioenergy||Drawn back before first editorial decision after 273 days||Drawn back|
|Motivation: The process of reviewing took too long. Therefore, we did not wait for a decision. It was difficult to track the status of the manuscript.|
|Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology||4.6 wks||5.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: After the submission, we operatively received information about the status of the manuscript ("with editor", "awaiting reviewer selection", "under review", "awaiting reviewer decision" etc.). Generally, the process of manuscript reviewing and preparation wa and qualitative.|
|Biosystems Engineering||9.0 wks||10.3 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Scientific Reports||5.1 wks||7.6 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Overall review process was fair. Reviewers were also fair and asked nice questions, this helped us to improve our manuscript quality.
Please remember Scientific Reports is Nature's journal and so, the manuscript has to follow the natures formatting standards. People complained about the quality check takes time and it does, if manuscript is not properly formatted. You avoid it by submitting proper formatted manuscript in first submission only.
|PLoS Genetics||n/a||n/a||8.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Molecular Reproduction and Development||4.0 wks||4.1 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Metals and Materials International||16.4 wks||16.4 wks||n/a||2||1 (bad)||2 (moderate)||Rejected|
|Materials and Design||n/a||n/a||1.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Fuzzy Sets and Systems||52.0 wks||52.0 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Unacceptable delay (one year) to the first review outcome having to contact the editor several times requesting information on the status of the article with low feedback. After one year quality of the reviewers´ response was also quite disappointing. For sure I will never try this journal again.|
|Science||n/a||n/a||14.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Ecological Modelling||6.4 wks||11.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I had a very positive experience with Ecological Modelling. The reviews were very thorough, constructive, and received quickly. The editor seemed fair and responsive. It was <1 week from the time the paper was accepted until a fully typeset version was online. Overall- highly recommended!|
|Journal of Common Market Studies||13.1 wks||13.1 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Critical but not unfair reviews. The main comments could have been met with "major revisions"|
|Clinical Pharmacokinetics||13.9 wks||14.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: CPK is a reputable journal in the field of pharmacy. The submission process was smooth. Time to obtaining the review report was long but subsequent processes (acceptance and editorial process) were really fast.|
|Marine Biodiversity||43.4 wks||48.4 wks||n/a||1||4 (very good)||2 (moderate)||Accepted|
|ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces||7.3 wks||9.1 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The process for this manuscript took slightly longer than what we've experienced earlier and expected, but all in all we have no complaints. The reviews were to the point and the communications with the editorial office were fast and smooth.|
|Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications||7.6 wks||13.9 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Overall a good experience. One troublesome reviewer with an agenda could have been tamped down a little sooner by the editor (it took two revisions for me to convince him that the reviewer was incorrect). Took 10-12 days to get an editorial decision after all of the reviews were in. Nice that the interface shows you this level of detail. Unfortunate that it took that long.|
|Journal of the Iranian Chemical Society||Drawn back before first editorial decision after 75 days||Drawn back|
|Drug Testing and Analysis||2.7 wks||4.0 wks||n/a||1||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Defence Science Journal||14.3 wks||16.3 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Scientific Reports||5.0 wks||9.3 wks||n/a||1||0 (very bad)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: After many time without a editor (around 1 month), the paper was sent to only one reviewer that doubted about the autenticity of the results. After answer all the reviewer questions and perfomed all the experiments, the paper was rejected by the reviewer. It take almost 5 month to reject a paper.|
|Coral Reefs||8.4 wks||8.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The duration of the review process is reasonable.
Reviewers' comments are comprehensive, with constructive suggestions.
|Coral Reefs||25.6 wks||31.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The first round of review took far too long.
However, reviewers gave really constructive comments, which helped to improve the manuscript a lot.
|Nature Communications||8.1 wks||15.0 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Zoological Letters||4.9 wks||6.3 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Geophysical Journal International||7.1 wks||29.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Journal of Structural Geology||10.0 wks||10.0 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Quick process in general and no fee for a print version that includes black and white figures.
Great job of the editor in handling the reviews.
Just a few weeks to wait from the submission time for getting a reference number to track the manuscript.
|eNeuro||2.4 wks||2.4 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The review process was very great. The comments in first round review were excellent, from both methodological and theoretical aspects, and it's done in 17 days! When we resubmit it, the editor just accepted our article few hours later. I was very satisfied with all the processes.|
|Social Psychology of Education||34.7 wks||43.4 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||2 (moderate)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Very, very slow at returning initial reviews. Repeated email contact was politely replied to by an office person (not the editor) but didn't speed up the process. Finally accepted a year (almost to the day) after initial submission.|
|Circulation||7.6 wks||7.6 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Australian Journal of Primary Health||6.9 wks||7.7 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Patient Education and Counseling||n/a||n/a||7.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|