Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very fast handling of the reviewing process.
Motivation:
My criticism was that it took the journal nearly half a year to get two reviewers to write an extremely short and unconstructive review. Added to that, one of the reviewers seemed incompetent with regard to the topic of the paper due to the nature of the comments received.
24.0 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The manuscript was returned to us for a moderate amount of revision, and unlike our experience with several other journals he accepted it without subjecting the revised version to multiple rounds of further review. We have consistently had good experiences with this journal; although they don't always accept our work (well, their acceptance rate is now <15%), they are fast and constructive, and whenever they do return our work to be revised they will usually accept the revised version without delaying it with further unnecessary rounds of re-review. Our labgroup is very satisfied with this journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to 3 reviewers. All were generally positive, and the Editor decided on 'reject allowing resubmission'. We put a lot of work into revising it to satisfy what the reviewers wanted and sewnt the new version back in. It went to the same 3 reviewers; two were supportive while the third decided to move the goal posts. The Editor decided on that basis to reject. The tone of the editor was a bit condescending and superior which is unfortunalely not the first time I have encountered this attitude from that journal.
Motivation:
The review process was long, but reviewers did a great job checking every part of the manuscript and appendices. Suggestions were good but required a lot of new work to be done.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected by a single editor with a very evasive rejection motive, 4 words: "more suitable for a specialized journal". Not even a word about what kind of "specialized journal" the editor is referring to.
Motivation:
The reviewers took a very long time to reject the paper. The article submitted was within the self-imposed criteria of Plos One. Only one reviewer objected entirely and sounded biases, yet the article was not send to a third reviewer to provide a fair review. The reviewer who objected wanted to have an entirely different study produced and did not really take any interest in what data was provided.
Motivation:
The editorial process and the choice of reviewers was very good. The reviewers were picky but fair. The editor seemed interested and always rather in favor of the authors. The editorial process post-acception was fast and efficient.
Motivation:
After an 8 month delay only very minor corrections were requested. These were made within 24 hours and the paper resubmitted. Nevertheless, it still took over 2 more months to get a further (acceptance) response.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to three reviewers who all recommended acceptance. The Associate Editor was most critical, and the revised manuscript was sent back to one of the three reviewers. Unfortunately, the second turn-around time was long. But overall, the review process improved the strength of the paper.
Motivation:
The reviews were point full and improved the MS
Motivation:
The entire process went very quickly (though we did pay for Fast-Track) and relatively smoothly. I would have liked more feedback on what was going on during the review and re-review, but everything was completed within the promised time. Finally, I had some concerns with the quality of one of the reviews, but the editor appears to have addressed it.
Motivation:
Quick and "friendly" rejection. They suggested me to look for a more European journal. So, although the journal has published research with European cases, it is a US-journal, which is not too fond of EU-research.
Motivation:
Average handling of manuscript. The reasons for the rejection are stated clearly enough.
Motivation:
Excellent experience. Reviews of high quality, very good correspondence with the editorial team.
10.9 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The length of time for reviews was very long. I revised the manuscript following the advice of the first reviewers. One had accepted the manuscript with no changes, the other asked for revisions. But then the editors sent the manuscript out to new reviewers who raised other issues. At this point I think it would have been fair to have treated the manuscript as being a first submission and give me the opportunity to revise.
Motivation:
Jonathan Baron reviews all submissions very thoroughly before sending them out to reviewers or rejecting them. He gives great comments and puts a lot of effort into his work.