Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
I have appealed and pointed out that
1. Our MS had NOT been published, or was being reviewed, in any peer reviewed journal. It was simply deposited on the preprint BioRXIV server. Please see https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
2. That the use of pre-print servers is not uncommon, and is accepted by most journals, including those from Wiley https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/preprints-policy.html . Indeed, we have never had any problems with the use of pre-print server before and assume that the decision to reject our MS without reviewing on the grounds that it overlaps with an existing MS must have been a misunderstanding.
3. Despite 3 emails , there is no answer from the Editor. To have a MS rejected without review on the grounds that it overlaps with our own pre-print is preposterous and deeply unfair.
1. Our MS had NOT been published, or was being reviewed, in any peer reviewed journal. It was simply deposited on the preprint BioRXIV server. Please see https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
2. That the use of pre-print servers is not uncommon, and is accepted by most journals, including those from Wiley https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/preprints-policy.html . Indeed, we have never had any problems with the use of pre-print server before and assume that the decision to reject our MS without reviewing on the grounds that it overlaps with an existing MS must have been a misunderstanding.
3. Despite 3 emails , there is no answer from the Editor. To have a MS rejected without review on the grounds that it overlaps with our own pre-print is preposterous and deeply unfair.