Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
One reviewer suggested minor revision without much advice. Another reviewer didn't have any constructive suggestions either but just stated that he/she didn't agree with the data, without giving a solid reason. Actually this reviewer misunderstood the data and the analysis, and some put some statements in an obviously wrong way. Unfortunately, the editor lacked the expertise to assess those reviewer comments and simply rejected the paper.
3.3 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
9.9 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The overall process was overall positive. The first review round was a bit long, but the editor kept us informed during the process (they had difficulties to find the secound reviewer). The communication with the editor was very good (ie very polite, quicks answers, didn't blindly rely the reviewers opinions). The reviewers were competent on the subject.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
BMC Biology determines whether a manuscript to be sent out for external review by their editor team in consultation with Editorial borad members.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
6.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
Overall experience with the review process was very positive. Not only the comments from the Referees but also from the Editorial Staff were very constructive and indeed helped us to improve our manuscript. The relatively long time for the first round of revision might be explained by the festivities over Christmas and New Year. The only point that I suggested the Journal to improve was the system for submission of the files of the manuscript.