Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Editor argued that the concepts were not clear in the front end and they were not link to the literature. Fair enough because there was an special section for it just after the introduction that the editor clearly did not read. Overall, fast review with rapid responses from managing editors.
Motivation:
The editor is efficient. The review comments are helpful to improve our paper. We have made substantial additional changes than the reviews required so it takes more than the required revision time frame (30 days). Absolutely recommend for colleagues in computational biology.
Motivation:
Editor rejection was based on the fact we had a combined Results and Discussion section, even though pretty much every paper in this journal follows such format. Very long waiting time for an editorial rejection and very questionable reasons for doing so.
Motivation:
A very slow initial decision. I have published in this journal multiple times before, and the past handling editor was much better than this one, who did not catch the major points of this paper.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and fair: approximately six months from original submission to publication on line, including two rounds of revision. Very helpful reviewer reports. Excellent overall experience.
Motivation:
The reviewer suggested that I use longitudinal data, but my research funding cannot support it
Motivation:
The first review round was quite long. After we sent the inquiry to the editorial team we quickly received a reply with explanation that they are still looking for the suitable reviewers. However, the reviews we recieved provided good guidence which really helped us to improve the manuscript. Each of the three reviewers covered different aspect of the paper which was very useful because the research was interdisciplinary.
Motivation:
Some perfunctory words
Motivation:
The second reading consisted of two unfair, arbitrary, and sloppy readers of the revised version. Both of them were part of the original reviewers. Comments were inconsistent, inaccurate, irrelevant, raised new issues, suggested completely new lines of inquiry, and made-up observations thereby nullifying their comments made in the first round. Did not familiar with the relevant literature. Total lack of acknowledgement of all the revisions that were assiduously made based solely on the recommendations of the first three reviewers and the editor. The evidence points to a perfunctory reading of the revised manuscript, nasty nitpicking bordering on callousness, while the editorial office did little to check the integrity of the refereeing process.
Motivation:
It took over 4 months to assign an editor. The assigned editor withdrew twice. The reviewers needed another 2 months to respond. Via an appeal we were allowed to send a second revision as one of the reviewer’s response on the revision was in contrast to the original response. It took another 5 months to process the appeal again PlosOne had problems assigning an editor. So in total it took 14 months to receive a rejection.
Motivation:
Referee 1 did not understand the paper in a fashion I had never seen before in my life, and did not recommend publication. Referee 2 stated that the paper was suitable for publication in the journal, but advised us better motivate the problem. The editor rejected the paper after the first round. I believe neither of the referees gave us useful feedback, since the report from Referee 1 was quite detailed, but based on his completely mistaken understanding of the paper; and the one from Referee 2 was very brief, with no useful comments included. The same paper got recommended for publication in another journal with equivalent impact factor, better referees and faster editorial processing.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The review process was clear and quick. They show the median time to first decision on the top page of their journal. In my case, it took a little longer than that but 2.4 week is enough short for me. Assistance of the journal officers was excellent.
Motivation:
Horrible experience with BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
After almost one year of very long (and useless) wait for poor reviews, we withdrew the article and submit it somewhere else.
After almost one year of very long (and useless) wait for poor reviews, we withdrew the article and submit it somewhere else.
Motivation:
Reviews are conducted in a timely manner.
Reviews are helpful for manuscript improvement
Reviews are helpful for manuscript improvement
Motivation:
The reviewers' reports were very interesting and helped us improve the manuscript.
However, the review process between our resubmission and the outcome notification was extremely long: 3 months and 12 days.
However, the review process between our resubmission and the outcome notification was extremely long: 3 months and 12 days.
Motivation:
A straight reject from one of the editors, who stated that we using only one dataset in our study was not enough to get to the review stage.
Motivation:
Our paper is covering a phenomenon within their aims and scope. They published papers in the relevant phenomenon before as well. Entirely ungrounded reasons for desk-rejection.