|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 Cell Biology||4.9 wks||12.1 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The third reviewer was not objective. Journal has one round revision policy so after the reviewer raised not feasible issues/experiments after resubmission, we do not have an possibility to react.|
|Psychological Science||n/a||n/a||7.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Applied Economics||n/a||n/a||301.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Exorbitant submission fee, no replies to inquiries, article reviewed by associate editor and editorial report justifying rejection was superficial and useless despite retaining the article for more than 10 months.|
|Social Networks||65.3 wks||65.3 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Only after several reminders did the journal realise that their handling editor had resigned. The new editor provided no comments to the final decision, even though the reviews were mixed. One of the reviews was insightful and provided valuable comments, the other reviewer had critique that was not really relevant to the paper.|
|Journal of Food Processing and Preservation||n/a||n/a||31.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: One month to say: "The Journal receives many more manuscripts than it can publish and difficult decisions must be made on the basis of an article’s perceived priority. Your manuscript did not achieve a high enough ranking to be accepted."|
|Population and Development Review||n/a||n/a||20.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Computers in Biology and Medicine||4.0 wks||8.0 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|PLoS Biology||6.4 wks||6.4 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Process a bit long, apparently due to reviewer mobilization. Manuscript initially submitted to the journal three months before, and proposal was made by the editor to perform some experiments before sending it to review. Good contact with the editor though.
Some experiments or adjustments in the text could have been easily performed. The absence of proposal for revision is thus disappointing.
|Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning||n/a||n/a||7.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|International Journal of Human-Computer Studies||n/a||n/a||93.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Journal of Biogeography||7.7 wks||13.3 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Quaternary Science Reviews||9.3 wks||9.4 wks||n/a||1||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Geophysical Research Letters||4.0 wks||5.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|PLoS ONE||10.8 wks||23.9 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: We experienced serious delays and issues during the review process, raising serious concerns about the reliability and overall quality of the journal.
The first review round took 2.5 months. The revised version of our manuscript was submitted on February 1, 2017. Then, our understanding was that the manuscript passed the technical check and was submitted to the Academic Editor (likely the same who revised the paper the first time). In fact, the status of the manuscript in the editorial manager changed from "Manuscript submitted to the journal" to "With the Editor".
After two months, we asked an update on the revision status and we were told that our manuscript was "currently being sent out for assignment to an Academic Editor" (a different one?). After that, the status returned to "Manuscript submitted to the journal" and remained the same for 30 days.
After three months from the new submission, the Editorial Office failed to find an Academic
Editor and eventually stopped replying to our emails. Therefore, although all the requests from the reviewers were addressed properly, we decided to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration by the journal.
|Acta Materialia||n/a||n/a||4.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Knowledge and Information Systems||10.3 wks||10.3 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|FEBS Open Bio||5.1 wks||11.7 wks||n/a||1||5 (excellent)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: There was a long wait just for one reviewer to look over the revisions. Many emails had to be sent to the editorial office in order to get status updates.|
|Ecological Indicators||12.0 wks||20.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The review process was okay, but after acceptance something went wrong technically with the Elsevier system, and the last version of my article was lost in cyberspace. It took me many phonecalls (to India) and e-mails with the publisher's office to set it straight.|
|Frontiers in Psychology||4.1 wks||4.6 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Very fast editorial processing. The editor was very competent and helpful.|
|Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance||13.3 wks||13.3 wks||n/a||1||3 (good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The reviewers comments were good and relevant, but no clear reason was given for the rejection, as the shortcomings mentioned would have been easy to fix.|
|International Journal of Industrial Organization||n/a||n/a||11.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|ACS Nano||n/a||n/a||2.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: The rejection by editor was extremel fast and the rejection letter was nice - the editor commented that the manuscript is well prepared and interesting, but probably too niche for the wide readership of ACS Nano.|
|ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces||5.0 wks||5.7 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The process was satisfactory in practically all ways; our only major issue with the ACS system is that it is quite prone to browser errors and after the manuscript has been submitted, the only status visible is "Submitted to Editorial Office" independent of whether it is being assessed by the editor or the reviewers.|
|Journal of Medical Internet Research||14.7 wks||15.3 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: JMIR offers a rigorous, efficient and fair review process. The quality of the comments and criticisms from both reviewers was excellent. The reviewers offered constructive feedback, which helped us to improve the paper.|
|Addiction Biology||9.6 wks||9.6 wks||n/a||2||1 (bad)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The reviewers did not read the paper properly and their comments were too general. One reviewer could not open a figure due to technical problems but instead of asking the editorial office he adressed this issue as one reason to reject the manuscript. The other reviewer could not find the task description in the figure legends. I prefer a desk reject instead of waiting two months for such unprofessional comments.|
|Nature Geoscience||n/a||n/a||8.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Editor copy/pasted a line from summary in conciliatory decision letter. Suggested we publish in Nature Communications (which has $6K article processing fee).|
|Geologica Carpathica||13.0 wks||17.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Professional handling of manuscript, all questions were answered soon.|
|Limnology and Oceanography||17.0 wks||21.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||1 (bad)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I did not hear back from the journal for over a month after the initial submission, so I wrote to find out if it was being sent to review or not. They informed me that it had been sent out for review, but it would have been nice if they would have told me that instead of having to seek out that information. Then it took over 4 months to receive the outcome of the first review, which I find excessive. The worst though is that since it was accepted I waited over 2 months for a first proof, which was full of errors, I requested a second proof be sent, which took 3 weeks and was again full of errors, some of which were the same as the previous proof... it is still yet to be published almost 4 months after accepting it and will now be pushed back to the May issue (6 months from accepted date).|
|Journal of Medical Internet Research||9.0 wks||9.1 wks||n/a||4||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I appreciated getting thoughtful feedback from four reviewers.|
|Target||22.0 wks||26.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: A very smooth and timely process, with constructive criticism given by the reviewers.|
|China Economic Review||8.7 wks||10.7 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|BMC Genomics||10.7 wks||12.6 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The review process was fast. Good manuscript tracking system. The editor was kind.|
|Nature||n/a||n/a||11.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Editor pushed manuscript to subjournal; no feedback on manuscript.|
|Bioinformatics||5.1 wks||7.7 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces||8.3 wks||8.7 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I am a great fan of how quickly everything was handled by ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. My only beef with the ACS system is that there is no feedback on whether your manuscript is still with the editor or under review.|
|Psychological Medicine||7.6 wks||19.0 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: A thoroughly disheartening and shambolic process. First set of reviews: 2 positive, 1 negative. Response of editor: "One of the referees had very major criticisms of your paper. If you believe you can fully address the deficiencies then we would be willing to see a radically revised version. However I should advise you that we would send it back to the same referee. You might therefore want to think carefully whether you wish to do this or consider another journal." We thought carefully, but decided to resubmit because the reviewer had misunderstood some basic methodological details and also made erroneous comments about the statistical analyses. So, of course we could address his/her petty concerns!
In addition to the detailed response to the reviewer, we sent a letter to the editor explaining that we were concerned about possible bias and the various errors s/he had made, providing detailed and blunter rebuttals than would have been sensible to put in the 'response to reviewers' document. The editor is after all an elder statesman of psychiatry, and would obviously make a wise and considered judgement? So we waited for about 2 months and eventually were told the review (singular) had been received and that a decision was imminent. A further two weeks went by and still no word. When we enquired, we were then told that the paper had been sent out for review AGAIN. We thought this was a good sign, believing that the negative reviewer's views must have remained unchanged after the revision and that the sage editor had decided that the fairest course of action was to get a fourth/fifth opinion. And then, two days after that we were told that the paper was rejected (i.e. before the re-re-review). We were only sent the negative reviewer's second set of comments (which predictably contained a series of additional concerns).
It is of course possible that we were viewing our work through rose tinted glasses, seeing it as a major breakthrough in psychiatry (the two positive reviewers took a more modest view of our work, but commended it as important, nonetheless) and that the negative reviewer was right to criticise our work (and the editor right to reject it on the basis of that criticism). But it really concerns me that the editor was so willingly and credulously swayed by a reviewer whose comments, by any measure of pettiness, were trivial and/or based on a misunderstanding of the literature and statistical methods. My feeling was that our fate was sealed after the first reviews and the fairest thing would have been to definitively put us out of our misery at that stage. Instead we waited >5 months to receive a really ill considered decision.
|Science||n/a||n/a||11.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: standard rejection: "The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal."
overall submission process quite pleasant (online information on status of submission etc)
|NeuroImage||8.4 wks||8.4 wks||n/a||4||2 (moderate)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Games and Economic Behavior||13.7 wks||13.7 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|International Journal of Epidemiology||n/a||n/a||34.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|