Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
2.8 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
5.7 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
4.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.5 / 5.0 (difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
3.5 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
1.5 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 7.0 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The nomenclature reviewer made us change the name of the bacteria 3 times. At each of the 4 review rounds the editor and the reviewers asked us new experiments/analysis. We all would have saved a lot of time and frustration if all the additional work was asked for at the first round of review. The editor and one of the reviewer confuse type-setting and reviewing. For exemple, the last round of review consisted in putting the abstract in one paragraph instead of two and putting one bacterial name in italic in a figure.