Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences has not yet provided information for this page.

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

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 21 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.2 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 3.0 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 8 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.1 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.9 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.6 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 3.5 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 6.4 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
My initial submission was rejected with option to resubmit, which was always my intention. To me, this seemed a slightly harsh decision as the reviewers were both positive on the concepts and study, but requested major changes (which I was able to implement in good time - 6 weeks, which was less than the review time). Irrespective, the reviewer comments certainly contributed to the betterment of the article, which I thank them for. Following my resubmission of the article, the review process was very smooth, with the only exception of some terminology misunderstandings by one reviewer leading to the same comment appearing in the reviews of the manuscript. Overall, I think Proceedings B has a very good submission and review process, although they do sometimes seem a bit keen to reject and offer resubmission rather than encouraging authors by granting major revisions (this being a trend I have noticed in previous submissions). This should not, however, discourage anyone from submitting to the journal, as the process itself is very well structured and there is ample support from the editorial and proofing staff.