Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
4.0 weeks
6.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal can turn around articles v. quickly. The editor is engaged in the process. I have published a few articles in this and have always been impressed by its commitment to doing a good job. Reviewers are mostly (not always) constructive and helpful. Articles I have published here have a solid citation outcome, often better than ones I have published in ostensibly better ranked UK or US journals.
Motivation:
The initial review process was poorly handled with one clearly inappropriate review and an editor who did not pass our revisions on to the reviewers for two months. Upon appealing the decision, the appeal was handled promptly.
14.9 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3.0 / 5.0
3.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
It was a pretty fast and transparent process. The review report was of good quality and reviewers put the effort into reading and reviewing the paper.
Motivation:
The paper was desk-rejected by the editor. The motivation given was that the journal does not accept paper exclusively based on qualitative data (which was the case).
Motivation:
I think it is record-breaking. They rejected my manuscript within 5 mins. I have some reservation about their reasons about the manuscript not fitting their scope (For my situation, it can be a religious talk).
At least they made it quick and did not waste the time of authors, which should be learnt by many EIC.
At least they made it quick and did not waste the time of authors, which should be learnt by many EIC.
Motivation:
Quick rejection, though unsure of the reasoning.
Motivation:
Typical desk rejection, suggested to submit to Nature Communications
Motivation:
The manuscript was "sent back" because the handling editor considered the title and some other details inappropriate, and asked as to change them with regard to the journal guidelines. The comments, however, came through a wrong understanding of the paper - the changes requested by the editor would have made the title completely wrong and misleading. We politely explained to the editor our point of review, and also made some changes in the abstract to avoid confusion of the reader, but the editor simply insisted on his changes, especially for the title. We then contacted the editor-in-chief, who first reacted positively and was interested in our point of view, but he then did not take any action. Therefore, we decided to retract and sent it to another journal, where it was immediately sent out for peer-review.
Also, the initial time before the editor ever saw the paper was more than 1 month, which is very long.
Also, the initial time before the editor ever saw the paper was more than 1 month, which is very long.
Motivation:
Manuscript was rejected without much of an explanation.
Motivation:
Process was fast. Although changes suggested by the editor could have been easily adressed, the manuscript was rejected with offer to resubmit. Suggested changes mostly referred to changes to figures or adding new figures.
Motivation:
Since our paper was submitted during the holidays, the editorial decision was very quick.
Our paper combined mathematical modeling with biochemical in vitro experiments and answered a long standing question in the field. Based on our model predictions and in vitro experiments, we also proposed to explore a new therapeutic approach (in preclinical studies) for patients with a lethal genetic mutation. The editor clearly read and understood the paper and deemed it to be interesting, the concepts to be novel and the in vitro data convincing. However, the paper would not be suitable for Cell Systems because we did not provide IN VIVO data which confirm our predictions. Given clear novelty, medical relevance and the interdisciplinary in silico/in vitro approach, I find this threshold quite high for a systems biology journal - particularly during Covid-19 times, which made it impossible for us to conduct further in vivo studies (due to limited operating capacity of our) and the necessary in vivo experiments are not trivial. Would I have in vivo data, I probably would have submitted the paper even higher. I generally like the journal and would submit again, but it might be worth considering before submitting that your experimental data might not be enough if the data are "only" in vitro.
Our paper combined mathematical modeling with biochemical in vitro experiments and answered a long standing question in the field. Based on our model predictions and in vitro experiments, we also proposed to explore a new therapeutic approach (in preclinical studies) for patients with a lethal genetic mutation. The editor clearly read and understood the paper and deemed it to be interesting, the concepts to be novel and the in vitro data convincing. However, the paper would not be suitable for Cell Systems because we did not provide IN VIVO data which confirm our predictions. Given clear novelty, medical relevance and the interdisciplinary in silico/in vitro approach, I find this threshold quite high for a systems biology journal - particularly during Covid-19 times, which made it impossible for us to conduct further in vivo studies (due to limited operating capacity of our) and the necessary in vivo experiments are not trivial. Would I have in vivo data, I probably would have submitted the paper even higher. I generally like the journal and would submit again, but it might be worth considering before submitting that your experimental data might not be enough if the data are "only" in vitro.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and thorough. Reviewers' suggestions helped to improve the clarity of the paper. The editor agreed to a 3-week delay for submitting the revisions when I was on holidays.
Motivation:
The submission process was very easy.
Motivation:
The manuscript was not sent for review for 4 months. The journal did not contact me to notify me of a delay, and I was not able to reach the editorial office for help of comments. The eventual reply was a generic response and still, no handling editor and no reviewers were appointed. A very dissapointing experience and a major loss of time.
Motivation:
What is clear from my experience is that authors must be prepared to micromanage the review process with this journal and be very pro-active (reminder e-mails may not be sent to tardy reviewers unless the author makes inquiries). After 5 months from first submission, with no word from the editor, I asked for a status update. I was told they hadn't heard back from one reviewer and that a reminder e-mail would be sent to them. A month later I hadn't heard back yet and sent a follow-up message. I received my first response from reviewers just days later. Again, waited a long time (3 months) after second submission before asking for a status update and, again, received reviewer responses only days later, so my inquiry likely prompted action.