My experience with Environmental Research Letters
On January 9, 2015, I submitted an article to ERL titled "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,'” in response to the article by Cook et al. 2013. By mid-May 2015, ERL had received two largely positive peer-reviews of my article. Referee report 1 summarized: “Overall quite well written and interesting.” Report 2: “An incredibly interesting and well-reasoned comment on the Cook et al. study.” Both made suggestions for improvement, which I mostly accepted in a revised version that I submitted a few days later. Here is the abstract of that article.
In the eight months between May 2016 and January 2016, I received not a single communication from ERL about the status of my article, except in response to a direct question from me. And those responses were vague and unconvincing.
By January 22, 2016, 54 weeks had passed since my original submission, with no end in sight. Fed up with this interminable delay, I notified ERL by email that I was withdrawing the article. A few hours later, I submitted a revised version to Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society. On January 25, ERL wrote to accept my article and subsequently promised publication within three weeks. But I had already withdrawn it.
Thus my article was peer-reviewed and accepted not just by one scientific journal, but by two.