Kudos to our Peer-Reviewers and Journal Rejection Rates in 2013

Kudos to our Peer-Reviewers and Journal Rejection Rates in 2013

Our journals received nearly 20’000 manuscript submissions in 2013, or about 75 submissions per business day. It is a logistical challenge to handle this number of incoming manuscripts, to screen them appropriately, expedite them to external peer-review and to communicate with authors to keep them informed and advise them on revisions. More than 100 in-house editors are employed by MDPI to handle the manuscripts through peer-review, to manage the correspondence with referees and authors, and to guide accepted manuscripts through copy-editing, English editing and production. However, the most valuable part of the work is done by external academic editors and referees that generously donate their time to ensure that our journals publish high quality work.

Peer-review remains the cornerstone of formal academic publishing. It ensures that journals publish scientific and relevant papers, and often helps authors to significantly improve their paper prior to publication. It is of course also a filtering and selection process that tries to identify those papers which are most suitable for publication. For referees, reviewing provides an opportunity to keep up with latest research results in a rapidly advancing, information-based society. The quality and reputation of a journal depends critically on the peer-review of each and every paper, and the scrutiny applied by the referees and academic editors. The selection of referees is therefore critical, which is why we carefully select them after screening literature databases for their previous publications on the topic, and checking their academic background.

Being committed to a thorough peer-review process, we wish to thank all of our reviewers. To this end we recently published Acknowledgements to Reviewers for 85 of our journals, which list the names of the referees that kindly reviewed manuscripts for the journal in 2013 (for smaller journals that published only a handful of articles we did not publish the list, in order not to compromise the anonymity of the referees). The links to the acknowledgments for 2013 are collected here.

Rejection and Acceptance Rates

The overall rejection rate across all our journals in 2013 is 50.3%. This number is based on 18,627 manuscripts on which a decision was made within 2013, of which 9,374 manuscripts (50.3%) were rejected and 9,253 (49.7%) accepted for publication.

For journals covered by Web of Science, the overall 2013 rejection rate is 52.6%, based on 14,321 manuscripts that received a decision of which 7,540 manuscripts were rejected and 6,781 accepted. The table below gives the rejection and acceptance rates for each of our journals covered by Web of Science.

Table 1. Publication overview for MDPI journals indexed by the Web of Science.

Journal Rejected Accepted Total Decisions Rejection Rate Acceptance Rate
Atmosphere

18

29

47

38%

62%

Energies

789

334

1123

70%

30%

Entropy

210

285

495

42%

58%

Forests

97

67

164

59%

41%

IJERPH

581

476

1057

55%

45%

IJMS

1583

1344

2927

54%

46%

Marine Drugs

196

320

516

38%

62%

Materials

508

374

882

58%

42%

Micromachines

14

33

47

30%

70%

Molecules

1176

1008

2184

54%

46%

Nutrients

249

313

562

44%

56%

Polymers

64

63

127

50%

50%

Religions

18

43

61

30%

70%

Remote Sensing

391

345

736

53%

47%

Sensors

1154

977

2131

54%

46%

Sustainability

138

300

438

32%

68%

Symmetry

13

12

25

52%

48%

Toxins

54

164

218

25%

75%

Viruses

92

174

266

35%

65%

Water

195

120

315

62%

38%

(Picture copyright (c) iStockPhoto/DrAfter123)