Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Short time until decision.
Motivation:
Very helpful comments by reviewers who are experts in their fields. Short time for each round.
Motivation:
The second round of reviews was a conditional accept, asking to do very minor changes so it was OK for me to resubmit a second time. Most importantly, the editor decided to accept the paper despite the fact that one of the reviewers still felt skeptical about the article's argument. This is a good sign for me, i.e. the fact that the Editor is willing to bet on an argument even going against of that annoying reviewer who is not satisfied even after you have made the required changes.
Motivation:
We liked the process of publishing at this journal.
Motivation:
The editor decision took quite a long time (3 weeks), which is unfortunate. However, when recieved, the rejection letter was reasoned and informative. Although I (unsurprisingly) do not agree, it does help me prepare the manuscript for the next submission.
Motivation:
Good editorial comments from the reviewers that improved the manuscript. Rapid turnaround. Very streamlined and straightforward R&R process.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers were excellent. My only frustrations were with the publisher: The typesetters introduced multiple errors (including making some sentences of my paper ungrammatical), which I had to painstakingly find and correct.
Motivation:
The review process was rigor and helpful.
Motivation:
The handling and reviewing process was very helpful.
Motivation:
The review process was swift enough, although in general my impression was that the referees addressed those points that I never made in my paper. Yet, I had to respond in a way as if I had made these points in order not to get a rejection.
Motivation:
The associated editor gave very constructive feedback and offered specific reasons of why he thought the manuscript was not fit for the journal.
Motivation:
After an internal review process by the editor, I was notified that my article did not fit the journal’s aims and scope. The Editor took care to offer an explanatory and encouraging reply, providing advice on other journals to submit my article and suggestions on how to improve it.
Motivation:
The editor sent a very personalized and encouraging commentary, and recommended alternative specialist outlets which might be more appropriate for the paper.
Motivation:
Offer to trasfer to the Taylor & Francis’ Cogent Series (www.cogentoa.com) open journal platform instead.
Motivation:
Very quick editorial response. Reason for rejection was: "Although we appreciate that the reported new findings are likely to be of interest to others working in the field, I am afraid we do not feel that the findings represent the kind of significant new insights that would warrant publication in Genome Biology, which is aimed at a broad readership of biologists."
3.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Firstly, I have not seen a journal thus kind to the authors. The managing editor speaks too humbly and a very quick response was experienced. I think this journal is a good one for publishing manuscripts though in my opinion the template may be changed.
Motivation:
The handling by the editorial office was great and the reviewing process was very fast.
One of the reviewers was also quite helpful, while the other one obviously did not have much knowledge of the topic our publication was about. In some cases he/she made completely contradictory comments in comparison to the other reviewer. This was quite annoying as the manuscript was submitted for a special issue concerning exactly our area of work, so I was expecting all the reviewers to be more expert in this field.
One of the reviewers was also quite helpful, while the other one obviously did not have much knowledge of the topic our publication was about. In some cases he/she made completely contradictory comments in comparison to the other reviewer. This was quite annoying as the manuscript was submitted for a special issue concerning exactly our area of work, so I was expecting all the reviewers to be more expert in this field.
Motivation:
La experiencia fue excelente, todo el proceso se llevo a cabo de manera transparente y rigurosa, lo que permitió que siempre estuviera informada, satisfecha con los resultados y con la mayor disposición.
Motivation:
Very constructive comments from the reviewers.
Motivation:
The comments from the reviewers were highly constructive and helped to improve the article. The Editor was very helpful and assertive.
Motivation:
The Editor was very friendly and helpful. Reviewers suggested appropriate amendments.
Motivation:
Process at PNAS is quite opaque: for example, they do not share the identify of the Editorial Board Members.