Reviews for "Bioinformatics"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Bioinformatics 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2022
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected by the associate editor because we were falsely accused of being arrogant and ignorant. The first reviewer who made these accusations also portrayed himself/herself as an expert, but sentence after sentence in the review was false and can be proven false. The review was set up to make us look as if we were attacking the scientific community, and the associate editor bought into it. So disturbing!
Bioinformatics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
Motivation: Very superficial comments to explain the immediate reject
Bioinformatics 6.7
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Bioinformatics n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Bioinformatics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Bioinformatics 14.4
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Reviewer comments were generally good. Would have hoped it would have gone faster, but I guess that's always the case.
Bioinformatics 34.7
weeks
36.1
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2018
Bioinformatics 10.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: The review process from Bioinformatics was awful. The reviewers' comments themselves were ok, but I only need to cut and paste the statement from the editor, it needs no other comment.

"I am sorry for the long delay in reviewing this paper. We normally do not like to make a decision with less than three reviews, but ***one of the three reviews on your paper is greatly overdue and we have not been able to get a response from the referee***. It is especially difficult on your paper, since the two reviewers we have rate the paper very differently. ***Nonetheless, we do not want to attempt to find a new reviewer so late in the process and will make the best judgment we can from the reviews we have.*** "
Bioinformatics n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Bioinformatics 12.7
weeks
17.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
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.
Bioinformatics 5.1
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Bioinformatics 27.7
weeks
49.6
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: The initial reviews were unscientific (i.e.: based on personal experience and opinion without citing a single reference). Those reviews citing references wanted those ones to be cited in our manuscript ....
We rejected all those statements with supporting data and still got similar reviews in the second round.

The editor, even if not expert in the field should at least try to read the reviews and reject those obviously bad.

The last round of reviews after a long complaint letter removed the problematic reviewer and added new ones. These new reviewers wanted a comparison with a tool that is similar and was published in the mean time (submitted after our submission and accepted after a few weeks ... tool doesn't work by the way). One review was without any text and merely selected some grading criteria not visible to us.

Finally, a rejection was based on 2 positive reviews in the first round and one negative (by a reviewer that should have been disregarded due to quality of review) and additional 2 OK reviews, and one without any text.

This process is completely intransparent and I stopped reviewing for that journal and will not submit there again.

Bioinformatics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Fast and motivated rejection.