Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The initial review process took very long. One of the reviewer has seemingly ignored the paper for several weeks. The paper was eventually accepted.
Motivation:
The time under review was quite long, but given the number and quality of reviews we received in the first round, the wait was justifiable.
Motivation:
I felt that one of the reviewers has not even read the whole manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewers had thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve the quality of my manuscript.
Motivation:
Rejection because of (few) critics from one reviewer, although the other reviewer suggested acceptance (with only minor changes). 2 months and half for rejection is too long and an annoying loss of time.
4.4 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviewers gave useful comments. Reviews were obtained after two months which is pretty fast compared to other journals.
Motivation:
After submission of the first revision, the editor was unavailable. Plos ONE did not find a new editor for about one year. So we decided to withdraw our manuscript and submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
Very fast review system. Very good reviews and very nice online interactive review forum.
Motivation:
Very fast and nice review system. Easy and uncomplicated submission system.
Motivation:
Reviews were a little bit confusing, but overall review process was OK.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was excellent and the editor was very responsive and timely. The reviewers really helped in making the paper better. The one drawback is that one of the reviewers took a long time to respond, which delayed the process.
Motivation:
Fast, would submit there again.
Motivation:
Though rejected, the prompt response seems very fair, professional and encouraging to pursue a better fitting journal.
Motivation:
Fast and thoughtful review, and excellent communication from the editor throughout the process. The journal even helped to promote the manuscript after publication via their blog and social media.
Motivation:
I understand where one of the reviewers was coming from (the one who was most dissatisfied with our revisions) but I also felt that we'd done a good job explaining in our revision why we disagreed with the fundamental critique and request for eliminating a portion of our paper.
Motivation:
I think it has a good editorial board. Because they have carefully reviewed the reviewers' comments and have seen the potential of my manuscript after the first decision. So they gave me another change by requesting a major revision. In addition, this journal accepts Latex format as the recommended one which is a good point since Latex compilers are Open Source and free to be used by everyone.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was excellent and really improved the paper. Turnaround time from reviewers and the editor was very quick. This was probably the best experience I've had with a journal so far.
Motivation:
The review reports were of high quality and contained many helpful comments. The amount of time for reviews, revisions and editorial decisions was appropriate.
5.4 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted