Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The manuscript was transferred to Materials Today Communications. The Reviewers were well qualified, just one of them supplied 33 comments, each of them requiring quite significant effort.
Motivation:
There is no serious reviewing in my opinion
Motivation:
The editor wrongly stated that relevant information was not provided.
The editor claimed that raw data and materials were not made available, although an osf repository where these data could be downloaded was linked in the submission mail and the article itself.
The editor also asked us to provide descriptive data analyses which would not have been suitable for the type of data in our studies.
The editor claimed that raw data and materials were not made available, although an osf repository where these data could be downloaded was linked in the submission mail and the article itself.
The editor also asked us to provide descriptive data analyses which would not have been suitable for the type of data in our studies.
Motivation:
Editorial decisions were fast; referees' comments very helpful. Overall a good experience.
Motivation:
The first round took a little longer than expected, and the few comments of the two reviewer were constructive but rather superficial. The time between resubmission and decision was quite short.
Motivation:
Extremely slow processing time, I would not recommend publishing in this journal.
Motivation:
This was the second time for me to have my manuscript published in this journal. The two manuscripts underwent a substantial revision which improved the quality of science greatly. I should appreciate those comments from editors and reviewers in the journal.
Motivation:
It took us quite a long time to receive initial response, but than the process was quick. The reviewer's comments were useful and helped us to improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
The whole process took exceedingly long (nearly 9 months in the first round and > 6 months to process the revision) and in the meantime it was near impossible to get updates about what was happening behind the scenes. For the initial review an editor was found but they withdrew at some point, but we were never made aware of this happening. Most of my requests to the administration/editor in chief/handling editor went unanswered. Few months after the revision was submitted the handling editor (wrongly) seemed to be under the impression that we had not written a response letter to the reviewers, which I found very concerning. The final rejection was based on an entirely new reviewer (only one..). Overall the worst experience I have ever had at a journal due to 1) extreme slowness 2) no communication whatsoever and 3) final rejection seemed very much at odds with the opinion the editor had after the first round of reviews. Would not recommend anyone to submit to this journal.
Motivation:
Initial editorial assessment was rapid after one month. The peer review process was slow but the production process was smooth and excellent.
Motivation:
The process was speedy and relatively painless. Reviewer 2 was extremely brief, but this was in part because they liked the paper. Reviewer 1 and the editor were detailed and constructive.
Motivation:
Very helpful suggestions of the editor. Very kind.
Motivation:
Horrible experience: 3 months of wait and just a desk rejection. I surely will never submit an article there and suggest everyone to avoid the Health Information and Libraries journal.
Motivation:
I wasted nearly five months waiting for PLOS ONE, and as far as I can tell they never even secured reviewers for the manuscript.
I've been in this business a long time, with 200+ publications and 20,000+ citations. This ain't exactly my first rodeo. But I've never had a publishing experience quite like this before... and I sure hope that I never do again.
Here's the paper trail!
____________________________________________________________
Me to PLOS ONE (3.5 months after submission):
This manuscript has been under consideration for over twice as long as PLOS ONE's reported median time to first decision. I know that these are pandemic times. Nonetheless, for planning purposes I would like to ask when I should expect to hear back concerning this paper.
____________________________________________________________
PLOS ONE to me (a few days later):
"Thank you for following up and apologies for the delay. The Academic Editor assigned to your manuscript is unfortunately having trouble securing reviewers. This can sometimes happen if, for instance, the reviewers with the appropriate expertise are temporarily unavailable. However, we have reached out to the Academic Editor to help the peer review process proceed smoothly.
If you have any additional reviewer suggestions, we welcome your input. I can pass them along to the Academic Editor for consideration.
Please be assured that we are monitoring the progress of your manuscript and will be in touch again when the Editor has rendered a decision.
If there's anything else I can do to help in the meantime, don't hesitate to reach out.
Kind regards,
Amiel Yebsen G. Pimentel
____________________________________________________________
me to PLOS ONE (immediately after receiving the message above):
Dear Dr. Pimentel,
Thanks for your message, but.... *what*???
It seems that you are telling me that after nearly four months, Plos ONE has not even assigned reviewers for this manuscript. In my over 40 years in academic publishing -- as an author, reviewer, and AE -- I have never heard of such a situation.
If, as you say, Plos ONE has been "monitoring the progress" of the manuscript, how could this situation possibly develop?
You say, "If there's anything else I can do to help in the meantime, don't hesitate to reach out." OK, I'm reaching out. The first thing you can do is to provide a lot more information about the current situation (like a timeline of what has happened with the manuscript so far -- which many other OA journals provide automatically, for all submissions). The second thing you can do is provide regular updates on what is happening with the manuscript going forward.
Given the history of this case so far, saying only that you "will be in touch again when the Editor has rendered a decision" (which could be, at this rate, several years from now?) is not nearly enough.
Your web site promises that "The journal office will follow up... and keep you informed if there are delays". That has clearly not happened here.
____________________________________________________________
PLOS ONE to me (a few days later):
Thank you for reaching out. I've passed your message onto a senior colleague, who will follow up on this matter shortly.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Kind regards,
Naomi De Guzman
____________________________________________________________
me to PLOS ONE (after hearing nothing for a week):
You sent this message a week ago, and since then it's been radio silence from Plos One.
What does Plos One mean by following up on a matter "shortly"?
I have been involved in scientific publishing for years, and I have never seen anything like this. I wanted to believe that the horror stories at https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-one/ were anomalies, but I am starting to see where they come from.
____________________________________________________________
me to PLOS ONE (after hearing nothing for almost two more weeks):
It is now over four months since submission, and apparently you have not even secured reviewers for this manuscript yet.
I heard absolutely nothing about the status of this manuscript until I queried you on February 13th.
On February 18th, you wrote to me saying "I've passed your message onto a senior colleague, who will follow up on this matter shortly."
I heard absolutely nothing, so a week later I queried you to ask what you meant by "shortly".
Nearly two more weeks have passed, with absolutely no follow-up from your side.
I have been active in scientific publishing for decades -- as an author, editor, and reviewer -- and I have never seen anything like this.
I am therefore withdrawing my manuscript and will be submitting it elsewhere.
This has been a huge waste of time and I will be warning colleagues about my experience with PLoS ONE.
I've been in this business a long time, with 200+ publications and 20,000+ citations. This ain't exactly my first rodeo. But I've never had a publishing experience quite like this before... and I sure hope that I never do again.
Here's the paper trail!
____________________________________________________________
Me to PLOS ONE (3.5 months after submission):
This manuscript has been under consideration for over twice as long as PLOS ONE's reported median time to first decision. I know that these are pandemic times. Nonetheless, for planning purposes I would like to ask when I should expect to hear back concerning this paper.
____________________________________________________________
PLOS ONE to me (a few days later):
"Thank you for following up and apologies for the delay. The Academic Editor assigned to your manuscript is unfortunately having trouble securing reviewers. This can sometimes happen if, for instance, the reviewers with the appropriate expertise are temporarily unavailable. However, we have reached out to the Academic Editor to help the peer review process proceed smoothly.
If you have any additional reviewer suggestions, we welcome your input. I can pass them along to the Academic Editor for consideration.
Please be assured that we are monitoring the progress of your manuscript and will be in touch again when the Editor has rendered a decision.
If there's anything else I can do to help in the meantime, don't hesitate to reach out.
Kind regards,
Amiel Yebsen G. Pimentel
____________________________________________________________
me to PLOS ONE (immediately after receiving the message above):
Dear Dr. Pimentel,
Thanks for your message, but.... *what*???
It seems that you are telling me that after nearly four months, Plos ONE has not even assigned reviewers for this manuscript. In my over 40 years in academic publishing -- as an author, reviewer, and AE -- I have never heard of such a situation.
If, as you say, Plos ONE has been "monitoring the progress" of the manuscript, how could this situation possibly develop?
You say, "If there's anything else I can do to help in the meantime, don't hesitate to reach out." OK, I'm reaching out. The first thing you can do is to provide a lot more information about the current situation (like a timeline of what has happened with the manuscript so far -- which many other OA journals provide automatically, for all submissions). The second thing you can do is provide regular updates on what is happening with the manuscript going forward.
Given the history of this case so far, saying only that you "will be in touch again when the Editor has rendered a decision" (which could be, at this rate, several years from now?) is not nearly enough.
Your web site promises that "The journal office will follow up... and keep you informed if there are delays". That has clearly not happened here.
____________________________________________________________
PLOS ONE to me (a few days later):
Thank you for reaching out. I've passed your message onto a senior colleague, who will follow up on this matter shortly.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Kind regards,
Naomi De Guzman
____________________________________________________________
me to PLOS ONE (after hearing nothing for a week):
You sent this message a week ago, and since then it's been radio silence from Plos One.
What does Plos One mean by following up on a matter "shortly"?
I have been involved in scientific publishing for years, and I have never seen anything like this. I wanted to believe that the horror stories at https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-one/ were anomalies, but I am starting to see where they come from.
____________________________________________________________
me to PLOS ONE (after hearing nothing for almost two more weeks):
It is now over four months since submission, and apparently you have not even secured reviewers for this manuscript yet.
I heard absolutely nothing about the status of this manuscript until I queried you on February 13th.
On February 18th, you wrote to me saying "I've passed your message onto a senior colleague, who will follow up on this matter shortly."
I heard absolutely nothing, so a week later I queried you to ask what you meant by "shortly".
Nearly two more weeks have passed, with absolutely no follow-up from your side.
I have been active in scientific publishing for decades -- as an author, editor, and reviewer -- and I have never seen anything like this.
I am therefore withdrawing my manuscript and will be submitting it elsewhere.
This has been a huge waste of time and I will be warning colleagues about my experience with PLoS ONE.
Motivation:
Very slow editorial process that could be considered a total failure. It took 6 months to get 2 reviews. Reviews received were incorrect and based on technical errors and obvious bias. The rejection was appealed, and a resubmission requested accepted for consideration - this took another 2.5 months for a response. The rejection was upheld on the grounds that the manuscript was "uncompetitive" relative to other submissions, and due to comments from reviewers directly to the editors. It is unclear why so much time (8.5 months) was required to consider the submission if it was (subjectively) uncompetitive, but it is clear from this, and related materials published recently, that the review process is based on low quality, technically inaccurate, biased reviews and capricious decision making.
Motivation:
Reviewers provided food for thought, agreed that the study is exciting and novel, but perhaps not outstanding enough for AJS. Editor just stated that their decision was influenced by the reviewers.
Motivation:
The initial decision was a reject with resubmission encouraged. The associate editor had read the manuscript carefully and highlighted some issues that they thought reviewers would find problematic. We fixed these issues and resubmitted two months later (Dec 28th 2021). It then went out to review and reviews were returned Feb 8th 2022 with a decision of Accept with Minor revisions. We took two weeks to make the minor revisions and after resubmission the manuscript was accepted outright in less than 24 hours. Working with this journal was an absolute pleasure - the editor gave frank comments that greatly improved the manuscript, which after resubmission was reviewed very favorably.
38.9 weeks
39.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After submission, our manuscript had to wait about 5 months even without being assigned to an editor. After about 3 months of review, we got only 1 review of rejection.
Motivation:
Desk rejection with two lines of editor general comments takes 3 weeks.
Motivation:
Not super fast, but the process was generally smooth.
Motivation:
Editor apologized for the delay.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers comment was constructive to the manuscript, but the second reviewer was pathetic.