Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The whole submission process, as well as the correspondence, is done through the online submission system; this was definitely a positive aspect of my submission. I was a bit disappointed with the number and quality of the referee reports, I received only one (positive) report that was one page long. I was hoping to get some suggestions on improving the presentation of the technical (mathematical) part of the paper, but the referee focused more on less important simulation section and the impact of the paper.
Motivation:
It was a very fast and efficient rejection experience. We got four (somewhat mixed) reviews of good quality, so later we improved a lot our manuscript based on the issues the reviewers raised. We appreciated very much the humane rejection letter and the short turnaround time.
Motivation:
It wasn't clear how the manuscript failed to follow the Guide for Authors, but self-citations really were excessive - and there were other major issues with the paper that I became aware of later.
Motivation:
The reviewers rejected the manuscript due to low advancement of the state-of-the-art, which suggested that they had reviewed the paper superficially. Nevertheless, their comments were reasonable and helpful for further revisions of our manuscript
Motivation:
Four months after acceptance, the article is still to be published in the journal. The journal says the time to publication is less than 10 weeks. That is clearly not true.