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
Elife n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Elife 8.4
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Reviewers reports were very constructive and highly supportive. It took us much effort to address all their (relevant) questions, and overall these novel results signifantly improved the manuscript. The review process was smooth (with regular updates from the editorial office) and constructive.
Elife n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: Fast decision
Elife n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: Editor offered some helpful suggestions but overall felt that the article was more appropriate for a field-specific journal.
Elife n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: The comments by the editor were condescending and unprofessional. It seems the editor sees himself as a gatekeeper and prefers to not let any work that doesn't agree with his own narrow ideas.
Elife 0.7
weeks
2.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: It was a pretty fast and transparent process. The review report was of good quality and reviewers put the effort into reading and reviewing the paper.
Elife n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Elife 4.1
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: We submitted our manuscript to eLife via bioRxiv and was sent out to review after 6 days. The reviews were in after 3 weeks and they gave us an unlimited deadline to revise the manuscript due to COVID-19. Once our revised manuscript was submitted, the manuscript is passed onto to at least the reviewing editor rather than all the reviewers (I think) and the paper was accepted after a few days. Since we selected the "publish on accept" option, our paper was online later that day. We will definitely consider eLife again.
Elife n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Elife 2.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: Reviewing Editors comments were mediocre and lack of understanding.
Reviewer seems not an experts.
good point: quick
Elife n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: The manuscript was assessed by a Senior Editor in consultation with four members of the Board of Reviewing Editors and results were found not to be of enough broad significance for the publication in eLife.
Elife n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: "Specifically, there was considerable interest in the topic of your paper. The modeling appears to be carefully done ... The manuscript is written well. That said, the findings are not particularly unexpected, so do not provide especially new insights."

Selecting papers not based on the quality of the science but on how surprising findings are is a sure way to exacerbate our reproducibility crisis!
Elife n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Elife n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Elife 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
Elife n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: Editors didn't understand the objectives and methods of the paper. One even said that there are already a huge number of publications doing sophisticated data analysis without it, which makes no sense, since this could be said for everything in life: we won't need a printer because we already have the Gutenberg's press, we won't need TV because we already have radio, etc. Very poor understanding of the topics. Speed: 10/10. Review: 0/10. Overall score: 1/10.
Elife n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: very fast rejection
Elife n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Elife n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Elife 6.1
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: I had mentioned in my cover letter that I needed things to move fast due to the tenure process and this is what occurred. They made the decision to send out for initial review in one day. The reviews we received reflected a very careful reading of the manuscript and a very constructive response focused on how improve it even further. The consultative process helped keep the number of changes requested to a manageable level within the eight weeks they aim for for revision. The reviews came up with suggestions as to how to textually address two of the five essential points if we could not carry out the requested experiments. The review of the revision just requested a few minor textual changes that greatly improved things further. The experience was exactly what I want from a scientific journal, it felt like a consultation among scientists who were focused on substance, not on arbitrarily delaying us or pursuing some pet idea unrelated to our original intentions.
Elife 2.4
weeks
2.4
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: Reviewer's comments were mediocre and showed a lack of expertise in the field. Also, they showed a clear misunderstanding of the research in the manuscript. The associate editor simply did not believe the results (since it did not fit his vision) and was not willing to discuss the reviews. The manuscript was quickly published in another journal and was highly appreciated among the gurus in the field. I do not recommend eLife but one can always try.
Elife 5.9
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Elife n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: the reviewing senior editor seemed to have conflicts of interest with our paper. the manuscript were held for four weeks before he rejected it. No clear reason is provided, considering such a long period in editorial office.
Elife 1.4
weeks
1.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The review process was quick, however two of the reviewers were tightly affiliated with each other and the third was from the same field, which we felt was strange since our work is at the interface of two independent topics. The rejection decision was mainly based on the reviewing editors view.
Elife n/a n/a 22.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Elife n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Despite having a total of 7 figures and 8 supplementary figures, it was unclear for the editors what added value the paper had for the scientific knowledge. Moreover , single cell RNAseq was considered to be a standard technique in the field and was lacking in our manuscript. Most of the comments were rebuttable, however the Editor felt that pushing the paper to external review would only make us lose time as we would probably receive another rejection.
Elife n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Elife n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: My main complaint is the time it took to reject. They consulted two extra people which took a while, and rejected it based on what I felt was a conflict of interest with one of their internal reviewing editors who I had neglected to exclude. I only realized the mistake when they indicated the reason for the rejection.
Elife n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Elife n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Elife n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Elife n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: They were nice enough to inform after a week under editorial assessment that there is a delay from their side and would get back to us soon. They commented, "Although the work is of interest, we are not convinced that the findings presented have the potential significance that we require for publication in eLife. We think your findings fall short of proving the hypothesis".

Since the process was quick, we didn`t lose much time!
Elife n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Elife n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Elife n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Elife 6.3
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The first round of review was quick, but they even apologized for the delay compared to their policy, which is impressive. The reviewing editor who disclosed her/his name spotted the interesting point that significantly improved the manuscript. Overall review quality was high.
Elife n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: At least it's quick, and reasonable decisions has been made by expert scientists, thus no frustration.
Elife n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Elife n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Elife n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016