|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|
|Health Affairs||n/a||n/a||5.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology||5.0 wks||5.1 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Swift review process. After submission of the revised manuscript competent editors assessed the revised version without another round of reviews and accepted it immediately (I figure upon seeing that apt changes were made).|
|American Sociological Review||23.7 wks||54.1 wks||n/a||4||3 (good)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|American Journal of Cultural Sociology||10.4 wks||13.4 wks||n/a||3||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Population, Space and Place||13.0 wks||26.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I am very satisfied about my submissions to this journal. The comments of the reviewers always helped to improve the article.|
|Ethnicities||13.0 wks||13.0 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Although my article was rejected, the review procedure was very fast, and communication with the journal very efficient|
|Social Science Information||9.0 wks||11.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The review process was fair and constructive, and the length of the whole process was expectable given the character of the article (length, scope).|
|Scientometrics||6.0 wks||6.0 wks||n/a||1||3 (good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Review process was speedy and adequate. However, some editorial details had to be fixed (switching decimal commas to decimal points in figures, to comply with journal style) which proved to be very tardy due to misunderstandings and technical problems. This significantly slowed down the procedure of final acceptance of the article.|
|Science and Public Policy||7.0 wks||11.0 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Very good handling of the manuscript. Good and competent reviewers and a rather speedy process.|
|Journal of Sociology||28.2 wks||28.4 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Very slow review process for just two reviews, which were actually both very positive.|
|Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America||8.3 wks||9.7 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||2 (moderate)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The editor gave a one sentence justification for rejection, saying that the paper was not a strong enough contribution to the literature, despite having previously given an R&R decision and us fulfilling all the requests made by the reviewers.|
|Demography||8.4 wks||8.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Although I was disappointed with the outcome, the decision was fair.|
|Demographic Research||28.2 wks||32.5 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I was happy with the quality of the reviews and the eventual outcome, but 6.5 months felt like a long time to wait for the initial decision.|
|Sociology||6.0 wks||20.0 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: There was one very positive review of the first vesion and one negative. For the revision the paper was not sent to the original positive one, and sent to another who was strongly antagonistic. The editors made no justification of the decicion not to permit a further revision to meet the demands of the new reviwer of the revised version.|
|Energy Policy||26.0 wks||30.4 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The two (out of two) reviewers' comments were very helpful. They commented on few aspects that needed to be included to improve the paper. Although these changes were very demanding, however, the reviewers' were generous to reconsider the manuscript once these changes are incorporated, I was quite motivated by their comments and did the major revisions required. The editor of the journal was excellent too, in giving me the opportunity to do the major revisions and resubmit. I spent lot of hours in improving the manuscript and it was accepted after the major revisions were considered. I am very satisfied with the overall experience with this journal.|
|Applied Energy||30.4 wks||30.4 wks||n/a||2||1 (bad)||2 (moderate)||Rejected|
|Motivation: Out of the four reviewers, I got only two reviewers' comments that were in the negative. Both reviewers' pointed out the flaws in the manuscript which they already published just few years back, in one of their earlier papers without any issues. The reviewers' failed to look at the additional contribution of the paper, although it was mentioned in the introduction as well as emphasized in the conclusion. Of course, I agree that there were some limitation in my paper, and I already mentioned those as caveats. However, the reviewers' brought that out as a point of rejection. It's funny, because the earlier paper published by the journal didn't have some of the key aspects (that our paper addressed), both in terms of method and results, however was published. I think the reviewers' comments were somewhat biased. I will not be surprised if on of the reviewer's is the one whose paper we used as the basis to extend and improve on. I thanked the reviewers' and the editors, none the less, although expressing my objections to the first reviewers comments. Using the comments, none the less, I did minor revisions to the manuscript to avoid any confusion, and submitted to another outlet.|
|Biological Conservation||n/a||n/a||5.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|International Journal on Digital Libraries||21.7 wks||23.7 wks||n/a||2||0 (very bad)||2 (moderate)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The reviews took a long time to come back (compared to other venues) and the quality of the reviews was very poor. The LaTeX system used failed repeatedly to build the submission, even though it was written using the journal's own stylesheets and no other modules. The editors were helpful, however as a special issue I am not sure how much this can be generalized from.|
|Sociological Review||21.7 wks||51.1 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Although the review process was very lengthy, it was meticulous, and I got the impression that the editor was keen to try to help us to produce a finished product which was of really good quality. We felt we had achieved this in the end.|
|Social Science and Medicine||n/a||n/a||14.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: The article was assigned to an editor, who stated that it was not of interest to the journal. The submitted paper was a mortality study based on workplace conditions, but the editor to which the article was assigned has only published in the field of post-colonial literature analysis. It was difficult to understand why that individual was an editor at this journal.|
|Journal of Biosocial Science||8.7 wks||9.0 wks||n/a||1||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Ethnic and Racial Studies||19.5 wks||19.5 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Comparative Political Studies||11.7 wks||11.7 wks||n/a||1||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: decent reviews, overall duration acceptable|
|Journal of Politics||6.0 wks||6.0 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: quick process, useful reviews|
|European Journal of Political Research||8.0 wks||11.9 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: strong reviewers; overall duration was fine; very quick to go online after acceptance|
|Agricultural Systems||7.1 wks||7.1 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Sociological Research Online||13.0 wks||23.9 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: very good review process which made the manuscript substantially better
not superfast, but equally time is given to properly review a manuscript
|Cambridge Journal of Economics||52.1 wks||60.8 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I got referees' report within 8 months and the decision to publish by four more months (rather two months after my submission of the revised version) -within 5 months it was available online as advance access and by next 5 months it was published|
|Journal of Macroeconomics||4.3 wks||4.3 wks||n/a||0||n/a||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The paper was rejected on the basis of a reviewer comment which however was not made available to me.|
|Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics)||7.5 wks||9.1 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I was always promtely infromed about any progress in the revision process. The editor was extremely professional and read carefully the manuscript in each step of the revision process. One of the referee reports was very very short and not praticularly useful. However the editor had a lot of very good suggestions which greatly improved the manuscript.|
|Journal of Common Market Studies||13.0 wks||14.0 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Criminology||8.7 wks||13.0 wks||n/a||4||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I have had papers accepted and rejected at Criminology under the current editorial team—Osgood, Gartner, and Baumer. The team is extremely efficient and professional. The review process is very quick, authors normally receive four reviews, and the reviews are generally thoughtful and knowledgeable. The editors actually read the submitted paper and reviewers’ comments, and they explain which comments are important and which comments are less important. When they have rejected one of my papers, the editors have provided 1-2 pages of comments explaining their decision.|
|Physica Scripta||13.0 wks||13.0 wks||n/a||3||1 (bad)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: In my opinion the referees did not apply the same evaluation criteria that was probably applied to the previously published papers on which my manuscript was based.|
|PLoS ONE||3.0 wks||3.4 wks||n/a||1||3 (good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|European Radiology||3.5 wks||5.5 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Langmuir||4.3 wks||8.6 wks||n/a||5||2 (moderate)||1 (bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The reviewers, at least one of them wanted to reject the paper from the beginning, and he/she attached very much to this idea and consequently followed that. The review was filled alway: i feel that, i feel those thing - nothing objective. It seems pure competition and in that situation he/she had the right to act on this very much.|
|Separation and Purification Technology||5.7 wks||7.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I have very positive opinion on this review process!|
|Advanced Robotics||30.4 wks||47.7 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||2 (moderate)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The revision process of this paper submitted to Advanced Robotics, one amongst the dozen of journals in robotics with impact factor nowadays, was quite unique to me. As such, I hope that other authors may bear that in mind as this may be considered as an outlier on the journal's evaluation.
After having two papers accepted at the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR2011), me, as other authors who had papers accepted at the conference, were invited to submit an extended version of their works to a Special Issue on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics, in the journal of Advanced Robotics. As such, I did so.
As we know, Special Issues do not follow the exact same rules as most regular issues. Typically, external editors are invited to take care of the process and they need to do so faster than usual as there is a tight schedule to maintain. This is why I got worried when I received the following e-mail 3 months after the submission:
"Today the Editorial Committee of Advanced Robotics needs to inform you of the serious trouble we have faced. The server, we have rented, has crushed on 20 June 2012, and on 25 June 2012 we have been informed from the server company that all of the data, including uploaded files as well as the back-up data, have been lost."
In other words, my paper got lost.
Knowing about these deadlines, I tried to resubmit once again to the Special Issue. Unfortunately, despite the considerably positive feedback from the reviewers, 4 months later, the editor-in-chief decided to reject my paper since "it is not clear the proposed methods are useful in search and rescue missions". Nevertheless, the editor-in-chief invited to resubmit it, based on the almost nonexistent reviews, to the regular issue of the journal. The paper was then accepted to the regular issue, without further revisions, 4 months later, and published another 6 months later.
That being said, I do think that this was an exception and I do believe in the quality of the journal. Therefore, I do expect that this experience won't be shared by anyone else.
|Computer Vision and Image Understanding||n/a||n/a||30.4 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: I cannot say much about Computer Vision and Image Understanding (Elsevier). The paper was sent to this journal and considered "not suitable for publication in the journal" because of "limited interest to the CVIU readership".
That being said, perhaps the paper about image detection and estimation techniques was not suitable to a journal on computer vision...
|Pattern Analysis and Applications||34.7 wks||86.8 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||2 (moderate)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Pattern Analysis and Applications (PAA) is a considerably known Springer journal with average to high quality papers. The reviews were, in general, scientifically constructive and helped to slightly improve the overall paper. However, the duration of the whole process was unbearable. Between the moment I submitted the paper, until it was finally accepted, 1 year and a half had passed. As if this wasn't enough, although the paper became with the "in press" status after some few months (+ 2 months), it was only published in the corresponding volume and issue 1 year and 1 month after. In other words, the paper was written and submitted in 2010, but it will be cited it as being from 2013.
To keep it short, if time isn't an issue, than I recommend submitting papers to PAA. Else, if time is of the essence, as it is for me, then just search for an alternative.