Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers identified so-called weaknesses that were not weaknesses at all. They were easily refutable. However, the editor did not give us the chance to revise the manuscript, arguing that the weaknesses were difficult to address. It is a pity that we were not able to defend our work. I appreciate the editor for sending out the manuscript to reviewers, but I give a low score for judgment of the revisions required. The main argument against our manuscript was flawed and could be easily refuted.
17.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was unnecessarily long. The reviews seem overall complete and reasonable, although short. Some mentions in one of the reviews makes us suspect that it was mixed with the review of a different paper, as it discusses statements not present in our work.
21.6 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewing timeline was extensive, and peer comments were frustrating. It seemed detrimental to describe the paper as "brilliant" scientifically but disqualify it because of the sensitive issues it addresses. For a paper with no scientific issues and fitting the journal's scope, corrections requests would have seemed appropriate to smooth the political dimension.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast response, but sad outcome
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although our paper was rejected by the journal, the process was very efficient.
1.9 weeks
1.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was sent out for review, but then rejected based on one review report. The process was very fast, however. One of the major comments in the report of the reviewer was that our results contrasted with existing (but different) evidence, which would take away some of the novelty. It felt like this very much contributed to the critical tone of the report and rejection thereafter, while I feel that challenging existing evidence is a crucial part of our work as scientist.
24.0 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: I took extremely long time. I had contacted the editorial office but the assistant editor keep send the copy & paste email saying "sorry for delay". So I contacted the customer service team to ask them deal with the delay. I guess if I hadn't contact them, it would have took much longer to get the first revision. The reviewers comment was helpful.
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Took almost a month for a desk reject. Not clear whether anyone read the manuscript prior to desk rejecting.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
2
Rejected
Motivation: a geneirc report was provided 6 months after the submission
30.7 weeks
45.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers engaged seriously with the article and gave helpful, relevant reviews.
n/a
n/a
60 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
11.9 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: Two times some of reviewers, or editors or... I don't know, abandoned the process. First time, after more than 10 weeks without news, I sent an email and first reviewer left the process. Three days after, first revision was completed (?) and mansucript left pending of major changes. Second time, one... reviewer? editor? left the process. 17 weeks after sending the correction of minor changes, the manuscript was rejected.
After 40 weeks and two revisions, two reviewers agreed with the changes of the manuscript and it was rejected. Well done PLOS.
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A short paragraph explaining why the manuscript was not a good fit for the journal and some suggestions about what kind of journal might be more suitable.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took less than two weeks from submission to receiving a rejection notice from the editor, which can be considered a moderate speed.
60.1 weeks
60.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
2
Accepted
Motivation: Due to reviewers' withdrawal and editorial changes, it took more than a year until we got the first decision. We only got one review, which had very few comments, primarily related to typos
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editorial board's assessment and informal consultations with experts took 3 months. Rejected without any report.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick desk reject.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A little too much time for a desk rejection with very vague reasons, but not dramatic.
n/a
n/a
123 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision is fairly justified; however, taking 120 days for a desk rejection is unacceptable, especially given the reason provided. According to their website, such a decision could easily have been made within the stated median of 5 days. There was no explanation for the prolonged process, nor any meaningful response to my requests for updates during this 120-day period.
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: They required the manuscript submitted are comprehensive and authoritative, timely, well written and address major issues of importance to obesity.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
2
Rejected
Motivation: - One single review with generalist comments like "You should do more experiments", "You should do more analysis", "There are still typos"..
- Very old Interface for application.
+ The tracking system of Elsevier for updates to see which reviewers had accepted or not.
13.7 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers handled the paper promptly. The handling editor was too busy to deal with the submission and so the paper spent several weeks Awaiting Recommendation after each round of revision, totally almost 5 months. Usually, editorial decisions are made within a few days of receiving reviews. We asked for assistance from the editorial board. They replied to us politely but didn't speed anything up.
10.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.1 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I submitted to RSC advances because I heard that peer review was fast and also heard that review process is fair.
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: 1. 피드백이 다른 저널에 비해 빠르게 도착하였음
2. publish는 accept 되더라도 한 달 이상 소요됨
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.3 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I found the reviewers comments insightful and constructive
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.0 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
26.0 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
26.0 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.7 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Overall, the review process was fair and manageable within the given time frame. While communication (via email) with the editor was somewhat slow, the process was reasonable and transparent.
11.3 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review, the revisions were good and with constructive suggestions.
12.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted