Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We got two excellent reviews in just a few weeks. Reviewers suggested major changes in the manuscript: splitting it into two smaller papers - one theoretical which is not yet ready, and one methodological brief report. We followed these suggestions.
Motivation:
We had 2 positive reviews and one negative, and editor decided to reject our paper without a chance of a revision. The reviews were fast, unbiased and informative.
Motivation:
Very fast and rigorous review. The paper was much improved, especially in the theoretical part.
Motivation:
I have not received the reviews of the manuscript, so he took it out of the journal.
Motivation:
Very fast response and qualified review.
Motivation:
Waited too long for the decision to reject the article.
Motivation:
mBio's submission system was relatively painless (hosted by eJournal press). Files are uploaded before metadata is entered so you don't have to wait for the pdf to build. The journal has unnecessary limits on article length and the number of supplemental files, and doesn't take latex files. Editorially rejected articles are transferred (with permission of the author) to mBio's sister journal AEM, so if you are planning to submit to AEM, it is probably worth shot at mBio first.
Motivation:
The reviewers were not familiar with my field of research and did not understand the implications of the results. They seemed only to be interested in their own types of investigation in the field of combustion. One of them made rather condescending comments. The other was partially positive. It might have been possible to submit a revision, but the attitudes of reviewers and editor dissuaded me, and I published a revised paper in another, better journal, with which I am very happy.
Motivation:
There were very few substantial problems indicated in the first review round, and these were all fixed in our first revision. However, R1 kept misunderstanding one visualisation we used and required a couple of rounds of random changes to see that the original was, after all, the better one to use. Unfortunately the editor didn't really rein them in either.
Motivation:
Excellent and very thorough reviews, in after about 6 weeks. Helpful points and useful criticism which helped us improve the paper. Second review round took another while but we didn't get any reports, just the editor's acceptance, so don't know whether it was sent out for review again or whether the editor handled the revisions. Overall, happy with this experience. The one thing I don't like about this journal is that they don't do author proofs.
Motivation:
Amazingly fast reviewing times considering that we got very thorough reviews by absolute experts in the field. The reviews helped us to improve the paper a lot. The journal editor was also very helpful, thinking along with us about images and other aspects of the paper. Although the paper could have been sent out for review after revisions, the editor informed us that the detailed action letter and the strength of the revisions made this unnecessary.
Note that articles for TiCS are generally commissioned by the editor. We were invited to submit based on a strong presubmission proposal.
Note that articles for TiCS are generally commissioned by the editor. We were invited to submit based on a strong presubmission proposal.
Motivation:
Frontiers provided a very unfriendly and uninformative rejection notice: "The claims are vague. There is not sufficient content to merit publication in this journal." The rejection came in the week that Frontiers journals were in the news for being too lax and accepting.
Motivation:
Good, knowledgeable reviewers. Helpful editorial assistance.
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.