Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Took longer than expected to get first round of reviews. Good and thorough reviews. We were quick to revise and the reviewers approved our changes within a week or so. Editor took another 6 weeks to formally approve. Still, quicker than most linguistics and many psychology journals, and the paper is available directly.
Motivation:
Average review experience. One lengthy report and one very short.
Motivation:
I think, I received an unfriendly and harmful treatment by the journal.
Motivation:
Fast and motivated rejection.
Motivation:
It was decided to be outside the scope. Although we are generally satisfied, it is unfortunate that this decision was not made by the editor directly. As the review process went quickly, we did not loose to much time.
Motivation:
fast review process, good remarks of the reviewers. A downside was the long period of quality checking after the submission of the revised manuscript.
Motivation:
Although the comments of the reviewers were good, editor advised rejection as it was deemed outside the scope. This rejection was responded on by us, but know answer was provided.
Motivation:
Initial rejection letter was 100% boilerplate text that provided no context for decision or who made it. Follow-up correspondence revealed that PLOS Genetics apparently has an internal policy that gene expression profiling studies should have follow-up experiments to provide insight into biological/genetic mechanisms, although this is not stated in the journal scope or criteria for publication.
Motivation:
Elife manuscript sumbissoin system was relatively painless, although office staff requested reformatting of supplemental files before review, which was unnecessary. Review process was fast and fair, but quality of reviews was not as high as I hoped.
Motivation:
Comments by reviewers but also by the editor, who summarized the main points in need of improvement for me. This was helpful.
Motivation:
We sent several emails to the editor to get information whether the review process is still in progress and have not heard from them. The last reviews were completed at about 7 months past resubmission, but we never received a decision. Thus, we waited two more months and subsequently decided to withdraw the manuscript and submited it elsewhere for publication.
Motivation:
Time between resubmittance and acceptance was very long, even though only minor changes needed to be made. Editor handled conflicitng reviewers' comments well.
Motivation:
Fast and good review, fast publication
Motivation:
The review process was very quick wich is good. The quality of the two reviews we recieved however was not acceptable. One reviewer had compiled a list of what he called "major issues" that included questions that are at best of very minor relevance but mostly methodlogical questions that the reviewer had failed to retrieve from a table, the text and the supplement. In addition, the reviewer did not have a clue about the methods used and advised things that are statistically just wrong. Reviewer 2 was not as bad but also had only limited knowledge in the field. We wrote to to the editors asking for a third reviewer, but recieved a standard reply. There was basically nothing, the we could make use of for revising this manuscript for submission to the next journal.
Motivation:
I got a courtesy mail after 3.5 months because the review took longer than anticipated. The reviews were quite substantial.
Motivation:
Inquiries about manuscript status are not answered. The journal sends back a manuscript a year later saying it is not fit because they did not find reviewers. No other reason given.
Motivation:
We did not pay for fast track publication, however, we were pleased with the speed of review. Further, the reviewers' comments were useful, and, we believe, resulted in an improved manuscript.
Motivation:
I am impressed by the rapid response of the OAMaced.J.Med.Sci. ,the excellent reviewing of the paper with valuable comments, rapid decision of acceptance after revising and resubmitting of our paper.
Motivation:
This is the fastest journal and I got a reply to every questions I had at every instance of the review process. The editorial team also did a great job,.
8.0 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The paper was rejection based on the fact that it did not fit enough within the journal objectives. The rejection came very fast, and they even suggested other journals that we could submit the article with.
10.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
In-depth reviews and a relatively fast process. Great communication from the editor.
7.0 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Efficient process with reasonable reviews that have improved the paper.
Motivation:
It is unacceptable to have a paper under review for almost 10 months with no response as to when a decision might be expected.
Motivation:
Qualified refree reports.
Motivation:
Mixed feelings about the process. Most of the review reports were thorough and have certainly helped us to improve the paper. They were critical and at the same time quite positive and down-to-earth, which leaves little to be desired. On the other hand, there was one persistent reviewer whose comments were not appropriate, and the editor did not recognise this and stepped in, as we think he should have. Further, another con is the lack of communication with the editor (no reply on two emails after enquiries about reason behind the long delay).