Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
22.3 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: This wasn't the quickest review, and then we got two reviews, one of whom only gave the paper a cursory look ("I'm not convinced" without giving reasons), the other of which asked for a few technical clarifications. The editor did not mention how this translates into a rejection.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Before the submission of my paper to ADNDT, just one week I have received rejection. The editor told me that using of publicly available computer codes do not meet the journal criteria. Despite, I checked many published papers in the same time have the same codes which I used.
5.3 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
14.3 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: After I received the first review (minor revisions), I contacted the editor to ask whether it was possible to take a decision regarding acceptance or rejection in the next round in less than a month time: I asked if, if I submit on July, 24, can I get a decision by half August? To my surprise, they answered yes. Finally, I resubmitted the revision on July, 13 and got an acceptance on July, 17. I really feel they stepped up the second round because of my request, which is excellent service. The faster timing will allow me to submit my PhD thesis on the date agreed with my supervisor, a target which I had already virtually given up.
11.7 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
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.
26.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
7.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
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.
15.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: I felt that one of the reviewers has not even read the whole manuscript.
Immediately accepted after 14.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The reviewers had thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve the quality of my manuscript.
14.6 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
2.4 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
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
4
4
Accepted
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers gave useful comments. Reviews were obtained after two months which is pretty fast compared to other journals.
17.4 weeks
69.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Drawn back
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.
7.4 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review system. Very good reviews and very nice online interactive review forum.
2.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast and nice review system. Easy and uncomplicated submission system.
20.6 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
5 reports
2
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were a little bit confusing, but overall review process was OK.
11.7 weeks
35.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
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.
8.7 weeks
8.8 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
1.3 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
15.4 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
26.7 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast, would submit there again.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Though rejected, the prompt response seems very fair, professional and encouraging to pursue a better fitting journal.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.9 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
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.
7.4 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
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.
12.4 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
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.
5.4 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.7 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Accepted
5.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
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.
8.9 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
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.
11.1 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Drawn back
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)