|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|
|Behavioral Ecology||n/a||n/a||5.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Scientific Reports||11.1 wks||11.1 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Very slow review process. Manuscript was sent for review after 7 weeks of submission.|
|Animal Behaviour||10.4 wks||10.4 wks||n/a||3||2 (moderate)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: the review process was extremely long.|
|Letters in Mathematical Physics||17.7 wks||17.7 wks||n/a||1||0 (very bad)||2 (moderate)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The process was quite fast but the report was not serious and quite offensive.
The argument for the rejection was a conjecture made in 1997 and never proved.
|Computers in Human Behavior||30.0 wks||60.1 wks||n/a||1||1 (bad)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Two x 30 month review rounds after the first review only suggested minor revisions. In the second round there was one clearly biased reviewer who did not seem to understand the aim of the research and how it differed from the context of their own research (which they wanted us to cite heavily). The editor was clearly out of depth, seemed to have trouble finding and following up on expert reviewers, and in the end deferred to one very biased reviewer.|
|Journal of Food Chemistry and Nanotechnology||5.7 wks||5.9 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The editor decision was quick, and it considered the reviewers' comments and my responses.
I was also particularly impressed about the speed of the proof creation, and the changes I asked to make on the proof. In few days after receving the corrected proof, the article was published online.
|Journal of Separation Science||3.7 wks||57.9 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation||8.7 wks||15.2 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I have fixed several bugs that existed in the original version of the paper's text.
According to referee's notes I have corrected the Introduction of the paper and added
a few additional references in the bibliography.
|Language||33.3 wks||33.3 wks||n/a||0||n/a||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Editor noted in his acceptance that the paper was "accepted as is, a rarity at this journal". Consequently we didn't get to see the peer review reports, even though the paper had spent over seven months in the review process.|
|Chemical Engineering and Technology||10.0 wks||12.0 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The reviewers' comments were contradictory.|
|Industrial Marketing Management||11.6 wks||12.9 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Journal of Tropical Forest Science||17.4 wks||26.0 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Canadian Medical Association Journal||n/a||n/a||1.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Elife||4.9 wks||4.9 wks||n/a||1||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The whole process was very smooth and professional. The editors were very willing to work with you to get the manuscript accepted. They were also very good at keeping me up-to-date with where the manuscript was at in the review process. Everything was very transparent.|
|Heredity||6.4 wks||6.4 wks||n/a||3||2 (moderate)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Three reviewers judged very differently about the manuscript, one suggested minor changes and made valueable comments, one was intermediate, suggested major revisions, but from the report it appears that this was not a specialist in the field, the third referee recommended rejection, although there was only one major point that was criticized. We wrote a rebuttal to the points raised by the referees and asked for a resubmission, which was allowed, although the initial rejection. We then re-worked the manuscript including many new analyses.|
|Biological Journal of the Linnean Society||5.1 wks||5.1 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Drawn back|
|American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry||2.6 wks||7.3 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Reviewer turnaround was very efficient. Statistical review was very thorough.|
|European Journal of Nutrition||13.6 wks||20.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|American Journal of Psychiatry||n/a||n/a||13.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica||n/a||n/a||14.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Journal of Affective Disorders||n/a||n/a||3.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences||n/a||n/a||1.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|BMC Psychiatry||7.6 wks||10.6 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence||6.7 wks||7.7 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: In general, the review process was OK. The total duration was reasonable given this field of research.|
|Optics and Laser Technology||6.5 wks||6.5 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Kyklos||6.9 wks||15.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Quick and transparent process; comments from referees and editor were very helpful to improve the paper|
|Nature||n/a||n/a||2.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Science||n/a||n/a||31.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Heredity||6.9 wks||6.9 wks||n/a||3||3 (good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Nature Communications||n/a||n/a||24.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: immediate rejection that took them 25 days!|
|Optical Fiber Technology||4.3 wks||5.3 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Journal of International Relations and Development||14.3 wks||77.6 wks||n/a||3||2 (moderate)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: I had to wait more than one year for a decision after the first review round.
All the comments by the reviewers were addressed in the second round but the editors decided to send to the reviewers again. One of the reviewers rejected the paper using completely new arguments that had never been raised before referring to points that were in the original paper.
|Sleep Medicine||6.7 wks||9.9 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Biological Control||11.6 wks||11.6 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Communications in Mathematical Physics||9.7 wks||9.7 wks||n/a||0||n/a||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics||34.1 wks||38.5 wks||n/a||1||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Astroparticle Physics||6.1 wks||6.1 wks||n/a||1||3 (good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Astronomy and Astrophysics||n/a||n/a||3.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|British Journal of Developmental Psychology||6.7 wks||9.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|JAMA Internal Medicine||n/a||n/a||1.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|