Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A large-scale identification of direct RNA targets and protein partners of RNA editing factor SlORRM4 uncovers its role in tomato fruit ripening" to The Plant Cell. Your submission has been evaluated by members of the editorial board, and we regret to inform you that we are not recommending that your manuscript proceed further in the review process. We have not made this decision lightly. Your submission was assessed at this stage by 3 editorial board members, who judged that the work would not be appropriate for The Plant Cell and that initiating additional review would only delay the eventual publication of your story. This decision reflects the priorities and platform of The Plant Cell and is not meant to indicate that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication elsewhere.
Motivation:
The review process was relatively fast. The editor provided us with a reasonable explanation for the rejection. We got transferred to other journals and could use the feedback from the reviews to improve our paper.
Motivation:
Every stage of the review process was very professional and author-friendly. The perfect rating is to highlight the excellent choice of anonymous referee by the editor. The referee was extremely diligent, as obvious by the in-depth and to the point comments and suggestions. This was by far the best referee report I have ever received in comparison to other journals in the field and it greatly improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
I have no complaints about this Journal.
Motivation:
Their response was apt and very professional
Motivation:
The review process was very fast even under the situation of COVID-19. The comments from an editor and reviewers were reasonable, which contributed to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
great website
Motivation:
One of the reviewers provided an extremely long list of comments, which I was initially overwhelmed with. But it eventually helped me improve the paper. The other reviewers had only very minor points. Although my revision was sent to the reviewers again, the editor was very efficient and helpful.
Motivation:
In literature, there is a very simple method for estimating the genetic correlation matrix. Due to its simplicity, this method is relatively often used. However it has some undesired numerical problems. We submitted a note (not a full paper) showing how to solve these problems. The second reviewer seems not to have read the manuscript in detail, since he made several statements on the manuscript which were very wrong. The editor proposed that we should compare the method to ASReml and resubmit as a new submission if our methods is better than the latter.
Our idea of this note was not to outperform a commercial software. In case a heuristic method which can be calculated with pen and paper would beat a commercial software, we would not submit this as a note, but as a full paper, and probably not to this journal...
Our idea of this note was not to outperform a commercial software. In case a heuristic method which can be calculated with pen and paper would beat a commercial software, we would not submit this as a note, but as a full paper, and probably not to this journal...
Motivation:
fantastic experience. very transparent and efficient editorial process with fair reviews
Motivation:
The review process was quite long. Reviewer #2 improved the quality of the manuscript, making interesting comments, highlighting typing errors and suggesting a better organization of the text. On the contrary, Reviewer #1 did not add useful comments and argued that English language should be improved. It was funny to notice that Reviewer #2 placed at least 5 English language mistakes in its review made of 185 words.
Motivation:
Extremely slow, but they said one of the reviewers was late. Acceptance email said 8-10 months publication queue, so it won't be out soon.
Motivation:
Both reviewers seemed to have taken their role seriously. They gave detailed feedback. I interpret the circumstance that the journal found good reviewers as an indicator of a good reputation.
Motivation:
The second round of revisions occurred during COVID-19, therefore there were delays in getting the information back. Despite the Editors external obligations, the review and decision arrived within a reasonable timeframe all things considered.
Motivation:
Manuscript was considered not fit for journal
Motivation:
Overall would not recommend trying to publish in this journal.
* The aims and scope of this journal are not clearly stated. It seems to be in the area of plant science, but from the review comments, it seems to want to be in the field of agricultural engineering as well. In that case, it would be better to try and publish in journals such as CompAg or Bio-systems Engineering.
* Too much time (more than 1 month) for the paper status to change to "under review"
* The reviews were written in very poor English.
* The aims and scope of this journal are not clearly stated. It seems to be in the area of plant science, but from the review comments, it seems to want to be in the field of agricultural engineering as well. In that case, it would be better to try and publish in journals such as CompAg or Bio-systems Engineering.
* Too much time (more than 1 month) for the paper status to change to "under review"
* The reviews were written in very poor English.
Motivation:
My article (a Query) was accepted within two weeks. I was not provided with copies of any reviews. The editorial assistant confirmed that it had indeed undergone peer review, but that detailed reviews are not always necessary for Queries.
Motivation:
We were very disappointed with the editorial handling of our manuscript. Every step of the process took very long, and the choice of reviewers was problematic, as two out of the three reviewers were clearly no experts in the field. The production process after acceptance was bad as well, as they've made lots of errors in text and formulas (and even changes to images!), which were definitely not present in the original manuscript. In my opinion, such an editorial handling is not acceptable, especially from a journal with professional full-time editors and horrendous publishing fees.
Motivation:
The editor is very responsible for the manuscript reviewing process and replies every decisions and question quickly. Also, the editor not only considers reviewers' opinions but also assesses the opinions by fully reading the manuscript and then give a fair judge.
Motivation:
Withdrew manuscript from journal due to inordinate delays after 18 months. It was an invited paper for a special issue by guest editors. Unfortunately, the guest editors were not able to make definitive editorial decisions but were required to have all decisions cleared by the editor in chief. Some of the papers eventually published in the special issue were in review for 2 years.
Motivation:
Decision after first review was quick and comments helpful. Time from submission to publication could have been quicker if we had submitted the revised manuscript sooner. Time from acceptance to online publication also very quick.
Motivation:
The reviews were relevant, detailed and insightful. I believe our manuscript is improved as a result of the review processes. The journal editors were helpful, and available. The editorials decisions were quickly made.
Motivation:
Nearly 3 weeks to get a desk rejection was a bit long, but during the COVID pandemic, it's understandable. The manuscript to evaluated by an associate editor who found that the scale of the study was far too small to support our generalisations.
10.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The manuscript was improved and the procedure was relatively quick.
Motivation:
Rapid rejection. The manuscript was discussed with the editorial board who did not consider that it represented a development of sufficient importance to warrant publication in this journal. They discussed our manuscript with the editorial board of a sister journal (Communications Biology) who offered to send it to peer-review should we accept the transfer.
6.3 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process is very timely. The overall feedback was good. The best part is double blind review process, which is not there in many reputed journals. Sometimes papers are rejected/ accepted due to bias towards authors in single blind process.
4.4 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Review rounds were speedy which I appreciate. Some reviewers were very good and others were not. The second round was a bit of a waste of time because they brought up new issues that were not raised the first time and were not related to the revisions, so that was irritating.