|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 Theoretical Biology||6.4 wks||10.7 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Great. It is quite popular and well-known Journal.|
|Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy||21.7 wks||34.7 wks||n/a||4||3 (good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I received 4 different reports, but very redoundant.|
|Synthese||n/a||n/a||3.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Editor based rejection on his/her own reading of the manuscript. No reason was given. But response time was very quick at least|
|Science||n/a||n/a||2.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Nature Communications||7.9 wks||17.0 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: In general handling was good. One slight critical thing could be that the overall process took quite substantial time in contrast to other journals.
|Nature Genetics||n/a||n/a||40.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Economics||n/a||n/a||17.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Relatively fast decision but reason offered for rejection came from people without knowledge of the scholarship in the field.|
|Journal of Cleaner Production||7.8 wks||31.7 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: It took time to publish in this journal but I think JCL consider quality and rigour in Publication.|
|Journal of Social Policy||n/a||n/a||17.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Journal of Educational Psychology||8.7 wks||8.7 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Speedy process and thorough reviews and editiorial letter which taught me that the manuscript did not fit in well with the scope of the journal.|
|Motivation and Emotion||16.0 wks||28.6 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I received a thorough letter from the editor, one detailled, thorough, and helpful review and a second review that was merely one sentence long. It took around 3 months from submitting my revision to the acceptance, even though the manuscript was not sent out to reviewers again. Overall a good experience though.|
|Journal of Vocational Behavior||n/a||n/a||7.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Fast editorial decision. Well explained, even if we do (obviously) not agree with the result. I would recommend submitting. Friendly and helpful contact.|
|Public Administration Quarterly||12.0 wks||25.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Largest problem was the time between beeing accepted and beeing published, which took almost another year. Yet, process was good and reviewer were competent.|
|Evolution||14.0 wks||29.7 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The reviews were the best I've ever received. The associate editor was really helpful and acted as a third reviewer. On the other hand, it took a year to have the manuscript accepted, so it was a really long time.|
|Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences||7.9 wks||10.9 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The reviews were very helpful and the overall process was very fast.|
|Business Horizons||n/a||n/a||42.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Article was considered too technical for the journal readership.|
|Atmospheric Environment||21.7 wks||21.7 wks||n/a||2||1 (bad)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Aerosol and Air Quality Research||8.7 wks||9.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Child Abuse and Neglect||14.4 wks||14.4 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The reviewers' remarks were easy to address. When we asked the editor to reconsider, she stated the one of variable represents oversimplification of the issue. It was something we could not change by re-writing. This type of concerns should make the editor to reject the paper from the start and not to make us wait for 4 month.|
|International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology||7.9 wks||22.0 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The reviewer's suggestions mostly contributed to the manuscript and the most important was that the editor gave a chance to correct. I had similar remarks regarding my paper at another journal and the editor did not give any chance to correct. Based on my experience with Prof. Palermo, he gives a chance to address the remarks, even they seems very complicated.|
|Scientific Reports||3.0 wks||19.3 wks||n/a||2||1 (bad)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The objections raised in the initial review round were mostly fair though it was clear from the comments that one of the reviewers was not an expert in the field. After addressing the objections raised in the initial review, that reviewer simply didn't bother reading our revised manuscript and just repeated the same objections in the second review round. In our response we pointed out that the reviewer's objections were already previously addressed and even mentioned it to the editor. However, the editor chose to reject the manuscript based on that reviewer's comments. A subsequent appeal was also rejected because the original reviewer declined to look at the manuscript again.
Aside from the unprofessional reviews and poor editorial handling, every step of the process required an inordinate amount of time, something that seems to be endemic to this journal which should therefore be avoided.
|Biomedical Signal Processing and Control||9.4 wks||14.6 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Reasonably good reviewing and management times. Reviewers comments were of good quality and contributed to improve the final version of the work.|
|PLoS Biology||n/a||n/a||12.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Fair process. Proposition to resubmit if new data could be added regarding the editor's comments.|
|IETE Journal of Research||23.4 wks||23.4 wks||n/a||0||n/a||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|New Media and Society||Drawn back before first editorial decision after 97 days||Drawn back|
|Motivation: Our reason for withdrawing the article was that for more than 3 months
the editor was not able to find any reviewer to read our paper.
|Child and Youth Care Forum||11.6 wks||11.6 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: This journal was the 4th journal we submitted the paper to. So, it already have been through 2 reviews in other journals. We adjusted the paper each time. Therefore, we understand why the reviewers did not write any significant suggestions. The editor also addressed the manuscript. His review was very vague since he asked us to go through all the journal's guidelines. We did it, but we were not sure what was expected of us. It would be helpful if the editor was more specific. Nevertheless he was very nice to us and the article was accepted.|
|Nucleic Acids Research||2.9 wks||2.9 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Technology Analysis and Strategic Management||13.3 wks||28.0 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||2 (moderate)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The review times were excellent. As a downside, the editor sent the paper for external reviews even for a very small corrections that he could have accepted by himself.|
|Agronomy for Sustainable Development||23.7 wks||29.4 wks||n/a||4||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: This journal was very good to work with and the reviewers' and editors' comments were very helpful in creating a stronger article. The editorial team was very responsive to inquiries about the process, as well as the timeline of review, along with other inquiries. The only thing that was slow was waiting for the initial editorial and peer reviews and decision from the time of the first submission. Once we received reviews and feedback, however, the process was quite quick and the amount of time given by the editorial team for revisions was generous (4 weeks).|
|Public Administration Review||6.1 wks||6.1 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The comments were in general very relevant and will contribute to a future version of the paper.|
|European Journal of Ecology||3.0 wks||4.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Fast review process, very fair reviews and comments from the editor, no page charges, high visibility (open access) - I strongly recommend submissions to this journal.|
|Social Science Quarterly||Drawn back before first editorial decision after 286 days||Drawn back|
|Motivation: The editor failed to find reviewers for this paper. This is quite different from my previous experience with the same journal (and editor), and odd given that the journal recently published an article on a similar topic, and other journals where we tried before did not have this problem. For various reasons we thought that SSQ would be most suited to reach the audience we targeted with this paper, but it did not happen.|
|Journal of Clinical Nursing||34.7 wks||39.1 wks||n/a||4||4 (very good)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The editor replied exactly as:
Thank you for submitting your paper to the Journal of Clinical Nursing. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to the design and submission of your article.
Unfortunately, after careful consideration and thorough review, we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in our journal. We are sorry to disappoint you on this occasion, however, we think your paper could be a candidate for potential publication in Nursing Open, a peer-reviewed, open access journal providing rapid publication of high-quality research on all aspects of nursing and midwifery practice, research, education and policy.
To learn more about Nursing Open, please go to www.nursingopenjournal.com. Nursing Open aims to provide feedback within 5 weeks of submission.
If you would like to accept or decline to transfer your manuscript to Nursing Open, please click the appropriate link below:
*** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. ***
My points: 1. Review comments were favourable, thus I did not see any reason why to reject the MS.
2. A recommended journal Nursing Open require payments (2,000 USD) for publication. My opinion is that JCN makes their own business by rejecting papers and asking money from disappointed authors. Of course, I disagreed with this possibility and I do not recommend any submissions to this journal.
|Afro-Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting||46.0 wks||54.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Overall, the quality of peer-review is good. After submitted and passed the editorial screening, the manuscript was immediately sent to external reviewers. The online submission system clearly identified the progress of the paper, and the editor responses for the inquiry are also quite fast. The only problem was probably the reviewers' delay to send the review back to editors, and it might be case-specific.|
|Harvard Theological Review||n/a||n/a||6.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: The editorial assistant informed me that the editors deemed the article 'too technical' and hence more suited for a more 'specialised' journal. In general, this is a perfectly understandable explanation—provided, of course, that the statement can be backed up by the journal's track record, consistency, let alone recent publishing history. Even a cursory look through HTR volumes published last five years one may note several much more 'technical' articles, such that the editors' decision not to submit the paper to further peer-review process seems to have been done on a whim and hence unscientific.|
|Water Research||8.0 wks||8.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Review process was fast, and the comments from reviewers were reasonable.|
|Paleobiology||12.1 wks||13.9 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The first review process was quite long, due to one of the external reviewers being very late in his reply.
The editor was very understanding and quick to react.
|Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology||9.6 wks||9.9 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Review process was good at keeping us informed and editor comments were helpful. The journal provided a summary of reviewer comments rather than the raw comments which was helpful to know what the editor found important but I would also like to have seen the original reviewer comments. Response time was very good. I was not aware that they required a reviewer recommendation from countries other than any author affiliated countries, so that could be clarified in their system.|
|Biocontrol Science and Technology||2.7 wks||13.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Water Science and Technology||7.0 wks||14.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|