Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
6.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
1
1
Rejected
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reasonable referee reports, which we believed we could have processed in the timespan of an R&R. Quick process, but note there is a submission fee involved (we paid 200 USD)
6.9 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Quick turnaround from peer-review. However, the 'Acceptance to publication' time could be improved.
13.0 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
22.6 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript remained 'with the editor' until January, when we wrote to find out what had happened. The editor then sent it to the reviewers. One of them revised the manuscript in half an hour without giving any reason for the rejection. The journal has no respect for the work of researchers. After 6 months, we expected at least some justifications that could improve our work.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Room one week for editorial check after which it was sent back with request to add page numbers to the check list. Took another week for editorial check, before it was assigned to editor for review but rejected in two days.
n/a
n/a
44 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 121.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: Submitting to this journal was just a waste of time. I've never experienced such a bad author experience at any journal before: Our submission was completely ignored. Also, contacting the journal staff after 3 months did not help to speed things up. After 4 months, still no academic editor was assigned to our submission. At the end, I was forced to withdraw my manuscript. The only positiv aspect: Journal staff confirmed my withdrawal request on the same business day.
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The submission system of the journal is modern and comfortable. The consideration of the MS was rather fast. The first reviewer was positive on our MS, but had some serious remarks like making an experimental research for a theoretical paper.
However, the second reviewer was too picky. Some of his suggestions were out of the line and rather stupid. Like, for example, the comparison of relative total energies of the complexes does not make sense. However, it was not a comparison of absolute energies. We send the MS back following the revision with step-by-step thorough answers. But reviewer 2 was still too opposing towards our MS and rejected it the second time also.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editorial assistant changed some minor formatting without sending back to the author in order to speed up the process which is great. The rejection was quick and acknowledged that a review would have only delayed the decision
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
2
Rejected
Motivation: The only thing that bothered me was not having any feedback on what could be improved, just knowing that it was rejected.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Gostei da rapidez e objetividade dos comentários sobre pontos a melhorar
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I had a the worst experience with an editor I have had so far (publishing scientific articles for 10+ years).
14.3 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: Good quality reviews, but editorial handling was slow
1.7 weeks
1.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
54 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision read like this:

"Thank you for submitting your work to Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (ASFS). After my initial review, I regret to inform you that your manuscript is not appropriate for the journal. The work seems well done, but we generally do not publish research focused on making efficient use of conventional inputs.

ASFS prioritizes interdisciplinary, participatory research exploring transitions toward sustainable, agroecologically based farming and food systems. We are particularly interested in work that focuses on agroecosystem redesign using ecological principles, as well as food system transformation based on agroecological production, equity, participation, democracy, and social justice."

Funny it took that long for the journal to reach a decision. I do not recommend this journal to anyone!
n/a
n/a
44 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor clearly read the article, but for a desk reject this was rather slow. The editor was encouraging and was suggesting an alternative journal.
1.4 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: he editor hasn't even read the work's abstract thoroughly; the response makes it evident. While there's no criticism regarding the quality of the manuscript, the editor stated that the purportedly 'new' methodology isn't actually novel. But this is false.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The review process, spanning two months, culminated in just one reviewer's comment, which recommended rejection. The brevity of the feedback and its content suggested a lack of understanding of the manuscript's field, making for a discouraging review experience. It is advisable not to submit to this journal based on this experience.
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: We had two revisions in reasonable time, we were asked to remove a part of the manuscript in a reasonable way. We responded to some criticisms of one of the referees and the editor gave us right by accepting the ms.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was handled quite smoothly . It was rather disappointing though that even though both reviewers clearly appreciated the merit of the paper and that their criticisms were entirely addressable, the editor recommended rejection without allowing for resubmission.
7.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: The whole review process was relatively quite speedy. The initial response from reviewers was positive but brief. The typical request for revision after review was instead replaced with a rejection followed by a request for re-submission as a 'new manuscript'. This seemed unnecessary.
13.0 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editors were very helpful and prompt in responding. The delay in review process was on reviewer’s part as they did not respond to editor despite multiple reminders.
3.3 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Rejected
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
13.7 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editors are reactive and precise in their answers. The review process took exactly the average 106 days mentioned on the journal website's metrics. The comments were very thorough and helped improve the paper.
15.4 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
5.3 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: We were very satisfied with the entire submission process as well as with our editor and reviewers. All of them were competent in our field. Their suggestions were very helpful and significantly improved the quality of our paper. The entire process was also quick and without any delays.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
27.6 weeks
31.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The journal now uses the Elsevier "Track Submission System" which is quite nice. According to the statuses shown, two potential reviewers declined to referee, while the third one accepted and carried out their duty in roughly three months. The report was spot on, and it felt that they went through the manuscript with care.

My only complaint is that it appears that the first reviewer was invited two months after the initial submission, and my revised version a month after being sent in. Both times, things started to move when I sent an email inquiring whether the process was moving along. On the one hand, the help desk was fast in reaching the handling editor and having things moving, but on the other hand a quicker handling editor would have meant a total handling time two to three months less.
32.6 weeks
81.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: We had a tough reviewer, but in the end managed to convince them. The core of the argument is still the same; I'm not sure the article is two years better now, but we got there.