Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
iScience
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected at Cell Reports, due to a clearly unreasonable reviewer. The Cell Reports editor communicated with the iScience editor and encouraged us to send the manuscript there. We did so, and the iScience editor find one more reviewer to review our revisions (for the comments raised by the Cell Reports reviewers). It was accepted quickly
Sleep
2.9 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very professional and efficient review process. This paper was a short peer reviewed Editorial, so this likely contributed to the rapid peer review and editorial speeds. Nonetheless an excellent publishing experience.
Organization Science
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They just said "your manuscript be submitted to another outlet for which it may be a better fit". That is not constructive or fair. Also, my topic fit them.
Advanced Materials
2.6 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Invited review. Excellent handling and fast. However, receiving the proofs and formatted PDF for review took a very long time.
Sociological Research Online
18.1 weeks
38.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: It is not the fastest review I have experienced. The quality of the review was average. However, it is still acceptable, the editorial time is responsive, and the review process is within what they expect. I will recommend submitting here if you are not in a rush.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
16.7 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
13.0 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Quality of review was good, and suggestions for improvements mostly were clear and relevant.
Response was very slow in both review rounds. Too bad the first response came right before the Summer vacation period, reason why it took us 12 weeks to respond.
Personnel Review
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Ceramics International
0.0 weeks
0.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The chief editor handled the manuscript very efficiently, and it was sent to the external review on the same day after submission. We got a response after about three weeks and the questions weren't difficult to reply. Our manuscript was accepted after resubmited for two days.
American Sociological Review
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was sent to reviewers very quickly. Although the reviews were mixed, with one proposing minor revisions and others raising issues that could be handled within a revision, the editors explained their rejection well and even proposed a prioritization of the reviewers' comments and suggested outlets to sent the manuscript next to.
JAMA Neurology
3.3 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Quick turnaround. Excellent review process.
Neurocomputing
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Consumer Culture
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: considered a quit decision.
RSC Advances
9.3 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Originally we submitted the manuscript to Green Chemistry, but it was rejected by the Editor for "low green advance", who suggested to transfer it to RSC Advances. We agreed with the transfer and the manuscript was eventually published in the latter journal. During the review process one Reviewer (out of 2) was not very positive, so we had to rebut his arguments. The Editor agreed with our stance.
Mechanics of Materials
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We submitted the manuscript to Materials Characterization, but within a week the Editor recommended to transfer it to Materials Today Communications. We agreed with the transfer, although it required some adjustments to the text. Eventually it was published in the latter journal.
Bioinformatics
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Scientific Reports
4.9 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Materials Today
7.0 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
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.
Journal of Avian Biology
5.9 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: There is no serious reviewing in my opinion
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
Journal of Informetrics
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
2.3 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Editorial decisions were fast; referees' comments very helpful. Overall a good experience.
Biological Invasions
15.1 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
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.
Journal of Biological Chemistry
3.4 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Scientific Reports
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: Extremely slow processing time, I would not recommend publishing in this journal.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
15.0 weeks
26.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
4
Accepted
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.
Journal for Nature Conservation
28.4 weeks
30.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
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.
Emotion Review
36.4 weeks
60.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Rejected
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.
Egyptian Pediatric Association Gazette
11.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Initial editorial assessment was rapid after one month. The peer review process was slow but the production process was smooth and excellent.
PNAS
5.1 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
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.
Ecology Letters
3.9 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
PLoS Computational Biology
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Europe-Asia Studies
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Journal of Cognition
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very helpful suggestions of the editor. Very kind.
Psychological Research
14.0 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Health Information and Libraries Journal
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
PLoS ONE
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 135.0 days
Drawn back
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.



Europe-Asia Studies
19.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected