My average is about 7-8 days.

I think a review of the article can be done during the first week (depends on other obligations) :

1 + 2 day - reading the paper,

3 + 4 day - research of previous papers, methods and achievements,

5 + 6 day - comparative analysis,

7 day - writing reviews and recommendations for authors

Dear Dr. Muzafer,

Most of the high impact factor journals of different publications like Springer/ Elsevier give 4 weeks time to a reviewer first. After that the reviewer can request for an additional 2 weeks time. After that that the reviewer is removed from the assignment.

But, it varies from journal to journal. This is from my experience only i am conveying. I don't think any journal will provide more time than that for review (6 weeks).

Dear B.K. Tripathy,

Thank you for your reply.

My opinion is that there is no need for authors to wait for reviews for longer than 3 weeks or 4 weeks.

I have done more than 40 reviews so far, the average is 7-8 days, the worst case is 10 days.

However, I waited for the review of my papers much longer.

I must emphasize that there have been positive and negative experiences.

1. In a very high-ranked and prestigious journal (IF 6.5), I waited less than a month. Final decision - ACCEPT.

2. I waited a year in a lower-ranking magazine (IF 0.5). Final decision - ACCEPT.

3. In one magazine I waited 18 months to get a very poor review (two sentences). Final decision - REJECT.

In my opinion, review should be timely to make the authors know their fate. It should be maximum of one month.

We had a very negative experience in one journal. We waited 16 months, we didn't get any reviews.

Dear Dr. Muzafer,

Actually, some time is taken by the editors to find whether the paper is suitable for the journal or not. After that if found suitable, they select experts on the topic who can be appointed as reviewers and assign them. The reviewers may not accept immediately. After they accept the time period is counted as i mentioned earlier. So, the slack time sometimes become too long to frustrate the authors.

Thank you professor B.K. Tripathy.

I also have varied experience from two months to an year. It is true that the editors take at least two weeks to decide whether the paper is suitable for their journal. After that I think further two weeks is the adequate time for the reviewers to review a paper.

Thank you professor Shrivastava.

In my opinion it should take between 7 to 10 days per review. This provides the opportunity to verify subject-related jargon to ensure clarity.

In my view, I'd say from 3-6 weeks per review, as some might be busy with other stuff and more importantly you're looking at a deep review not just scanning the paper, though it varies from journal to another.

Thank you professors Mokhtar Elareshi and Ardith Prescod.

In my opinion, I'd say at most two months.

Dear Johnson Awolola

Thank you...

Two weeks is the optimum time according to my perception and sufficient to do quality review. I have acted as reviewer for several prestigious journals and other journals over 400 times. I had to find anywhere between 30 minutes to 90 minutes from my schedule to write a quality report for every manuscript. However, it takes only couple of minutes to decide the fate (recommend revision or rejection) of the manuscript

Dear professor Dinaharan

Thank you for your response.