Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Glia has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Open access status
Manuscript handling fee?
Kind of complaint procedure
Two-year impact factor
Five-year impact factor
Disciplines: Neuroscience

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 4 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 1.4 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 2.6 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 60 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.3 compare →
Quality of review reports 2.3 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.7 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 5.7 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

The revised manuscript was rejected based on priority and a perceived lack of novelty. The one review of the revised manuscript, which contained several errors in two short paragraphs, concluded that the paper was "in fact very solid", but lacked novelty. No such concerns were expressed in the original two reviews or by the editor at the time of inviting resubmission. The reason for rejection was thus unrelated to the revisions made, and it seems this decision could have been rendered at the time of reviewing the initial submission rather than wasting our time by encouraging resubmission.