Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
After three months, the ms had not yet left the editor for review. After several attempts to contact the journal, the publisher and editor-in-chief eventually got back to us, regretted the unacceptable handling so far, and promised that the ms should be reviewed shortly and handled rapidly. That did not happen. After another two months the editor was not near a decision, and only a single referee report had been produced (the standard time for a review assignment for MPE being, to my knowledge, two weeks). At that point, after growing dissatisfaction from us, the editor-in-chief stepped in and made an executive interim decision (rejection, resubmission considered) based on a single referee report (regrettably of rather low quality). After resubmission, however, the ms was handled by the original editor, and accepted without further review after only two and a half weeks.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 574.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I had to withdraw my submitted paper because it was not revised 19 months after submission.
Motivation:
13 weeks is too long. Two out of three reviewers liked the MS, but a third did not. Plus editors submitted MS to internal reviewer , a claimed "expert" in Endocrinology, who was anything but an Expert.
Motivation:
They considered the work wasn't enough of a conceptual advance.
Motivation:
Not enough of a conceptual advance for a broad readership
Motivation:
Wasn't broadly interesting enough.
Motivation:
The review was slow because they had problems finding reviewers, but after acceptance it was published online within two weeks. The layout and copy editing was excellent, making the paper look beautiful. They were very responsive and helpful to any questions I have. I also greatly appreciate that they track the number of people who read and download the paper.
Motivation:
My main complaint is the time it took to reject. They consulted two extra people which took a while, and rejected it based on what I felt was a conflict of interest with one of their internal reviewing editors who I had neglected to exclude. I only realized the mistake when they indicated the reason for the rejection.
Motivation:
I waited 8 weeks for a manuscript to rejected outright. This is unacceptable for me.
Motivation:
First review round was slow. 2 Reviewer had an opposite opinion. Mansuscript was sent to a third reviewer.
After first round the manusscript handling was smooth.
After first round the manusscript handling was smooth.
Motivation:
Waiting for one year to get the first decision was a terrible experience. I sent couple emails to the editor about this but every time he sent me the same kind of sentences: second reviewer has not submitted the review report yet and I am going to read it along with the first reviewer's report to get a decision within two weeks. Finally, at the end of a year the editor read it and send a major rev. decision with unreasonable requests from the reviewer. Thus, we decided not to make any revision and withdraw the paper from the journal.
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."
Motivation:
The paper stayed way more time on the editor desk than in reviews...
Motivation:
The reviewers were of high quality and comments really fitted to the manuscript.
Motivation:
Good journal, three reviewers is a bit much and required a lot of work to address the comments. Process was fairly quick though with good amount of time between submission and acceptance (~3 months).
Motivation:
Process speed of the journal was normal compared to others and each process step was displayed in journal submission website. In my case, 3 external reviewers who were the expert of their fields reviewed my manuscript. First decision was major revision with lots of comments. The review points were reasonable, but little bit exausting. As a result, I feel like the review improved my paper. I think the review process time was totally dependent on the reviewer's personal schedule, not on the editiorial process.
Motivation:
One reviewer didn't think this was novel enough, and that was enough to sink the paper.
Motivation:
Fast handling of manuscript. One review was very thorough, the second a bit short, but overall both helped to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Reviewer suggested to accept the manuscript without further revision. I am harpy with the handling process of this Journal
Motivation:
I sent to Microbiome a review about the female genital tract microbiota and its relationship with the mucosal immune system, in which we proposed a new hypothesis about the etiology of endometriosis. We chose this journal trying to publish it quickly, because its web site stated as mean time of the first revision 32 days. The assigned editor retained the manuscript for 12 weeks without sending it to external reviewers. After requesting information twice (August 16th and 27th), no reasonable explanation was provided about this delay. In fact the editor did not answer my request.