Reviews for "Current Biology"

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
Current Biology 5.0
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Publishing with Current Biology was a great experience. The editorial team was exceptionally helpful and very responsive. The reviews we received were critical yet thoughtful and constructive. Ultimately, our paper was available online within about 5.5 months from the original submission. I would definitely submit another manuscript here in the future.
Current Biology 1.1
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The editor was extremely helpful and effective throughout the entire process. Our paper was initially rejected after one positive and one negative review, but we appealed the decision. The editor was quite welcoming and positive with our appeal and gave us every chance to state our case. After a long, hard-fought processes we were allowed to submit a revised version. After another round of major revision the paper was accepted. Altogether the process was very long, but this was due to the long appeal process, not the actual review process. The handling of the paper was quite fast and effective. The editor was very pleasant and did a great job with the paper.
Current Biology 1.9
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: This was the fastest review process that I ever experienced. The presubmission enquiry is very helpful.
Current Biology 3.6
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: This was the best review experience I've had so far. After sending a presubmission inquiry, we got a positive response within a couple of hours. After submitting the manuscript, the review process was exceptionally fast (4 reviewer reports within less than 4 weeks). Based on the reviewer's comments, we could see that they were clearly experts in the field, and even though some of their comments were difficult to address, they were very helpful to considerably improve the quality of the manuscript. Moreover, whenever we had a question to the editorial office, they always responded within just a few hours. All in all, we were very impressed by the quality of the review reports and how the editor & editorial office handled our manuscript throughout all stages of the review process.
Current Biology n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Current Biology n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Time-saving because of pre-submission inquiry and quick response. Very transparent and fair.
Current Biology 0.6
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Lots of back and forth with the Reviewers through the Editor, which made for quick assessment of key sticking points. Presubmission systems saves a lot of time.
Current Biology 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
Current Biology 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Current Biology 4.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014