Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I believe it was a relatively quick process, and the comments of the reviewers made sense.
Motivation:
In overall it was quite good collaboration. The communication between author and editor was on time, no delays in answers. The reviews were helpful and constructive. The manuscript submission system was very helpful in order to provide the account for the funding institution.
Motivation:
The journal editor was prompt and courteous, and the review process was particular speedy—less than 2 month, which is almost unheard of in the guild. The review was on the brief side and not particularly conducive to meaningful revisions (more along the lines of comments rather than concrete suggestions), but still helpful. A downside of the publishing (rather than the review) process is the fact that the journal has only two issues per year, so the pipeline is incredibly long (it can take up to 1.5 yrs for an article to appear).
Motivation:
Lost editor during summer, although PLoS stated that the new editor would take delay into account, it stool took 15 weeks before we had an outcome. Review reports were brief but fair. Second round of reviewing went faster.
Motivation:
The review reports were very useful. My only reason for not giving an overall 'Excellent' rating for this journal is that the review process could be a little bit shorter.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews from qualified, competent reviewers.
Reasonable response time on original submission.
However, despite highly favorable reviews from both reviewers, editor sent revision out for re-review. Should have been easy (fast) revaluation & response by editor without need to re-review. This process took 2 months longer than necessary and placed excess burden on reviewers.
Reasonable response time on original submission.
However, despite highly favorable reviews from both reviewers, editor sent revision out for re-review. Should have been easy (fast) revaluation & response by editor without need to re-review. This process took 2 months longer than necessary and placed excess burden on reviewers.
Motivation:
Competent reviews from diverse panel of reviewers. Reasonable response times at all phases of process.
Motivation:
Reviewing process is smooth and valid reasons for rejection were given
Motivation:
The process took slightly longer than expected, but we received high-quality reviews which substantially improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
All reviews were helpful, constructive and thus made publication of our work a reachable goal.
Motivation:
Very good and efficient process. The reviews were helpful and timely, and they have improved the paper.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewer argued that if the revisions did clarified several issues and resulted in a much clearer manuscript, however, they did had serious concerns regarding the novelty of this study relative to the previous one by two of the authors ".
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.
Motivation:
It requires a quite short paper with many restrictions but the review was fair. They wrote that the decision was made without reviews because the Editor's initial assessment indicated that the manuscript would not be appropriate for mBio. They suggested mSphere or mSystem for the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The review reports were prompt. The final decision was prompt also.
Motivation:
Comments from three (reasonable) referees which motivated helpful changes to the paper.
Motivation:
Very slow review process but the reviewers' comments were fair and constructive.
Motivation:
This journal was fast and responsive. Also, I felt that reviewers are very familiar with the subject.
Motivation:
Quick and fair review