Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
11.4 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
Pretty slow initial review, but reviews were excellent and the subsequent rounds really improved the paper a lot.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
19.4 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
The reviews ranged from overwhelmingly positive and short to detailed and very thorough. It is extremely valuable, especially to early-career researchers, to have the reviews and responses to reviews published alongside the preprint.
The only problem with the process was that it took over a month before the manuscript was sent out for review.
The only problem with the process was that it took over a month before the manuscript was sent out for review.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
11.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Constructive feedback with open-minded reviewers that actually paid attention to the details. Will consider submitting future works to this journal again.
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2022
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
38 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
This was a completely unacceptable and unprofessional treatment that my work received from eLife. My study was on the topic of COVID epidemiology, a subject that is changing at tremendous speed. Thus, delays of weeks that usually do not move the needle for other areas, were crucial for my work.
It took eLife 35 days to come to an editorial decision. Some problem had them contacting me on day 16, telling me that there had been delays. They apologized and told me a decision would be made shortly. Then, I would wait in vain, contact them asking for updates, and then be offered apologies, and told "editors are doing their utmost to expedite the process". This pattern repeated again and again during 3 weeks, and misguided me into keeping my work into this time wasting process, rather than taking it to another journal where I would have been given a first decision much earlier.
This was tremendously disrespectful of the huge amount of work and resources that I poured into this work (and I am an ECR from a developing country, without time and resources to spare). I firmly believe that the impact of my work has been considerably damaged by the ridiculously long time it spent under editorial consideration at eLife. And the information I received was consistently misguiding, with several weeks passing between eLife telling me "a decision is coming in a few days", and the decision eventually coming.
Hugely disappointed
It took eLife 35 days to come to an editorial decision. Some problem had them contacting me on day 16, telling me that there had been delays. They apologized and told me a decision would be made shortly. Then, I would wait in vain, contact them asking for updates, and then be offered apologies, and told "editors are doing their utmost to expedite the process". This pattern repeated again and again during 3 weeks, and misguided me into keeping my work into this time wasting process, rather than taking it to another journal where I would have been given a first decision much earlier.
This was tremendously disrespectful of the huge amount of work and resources that I poured into this work (and I am an ECR from a developing country, without time and resources to spare). I firmly believe that the impact of my work has been considerably damaged by the ridiculously long time it spent under editorial consideration at eLife. And the information I received was consistently misguiding, with several weeks passing between eLife telling me "a decision is coming in a few days", and the decision eventually coming.
Hugely disappointed
8.7 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
11.0 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
8.4 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Fast decision
n/a
n/a
10 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.
n/a
n/a
2 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.
0.7 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
4.1 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Reviewing Editors comments were mediocre and lack of understanding.
Reviewer seems not an experts.
good point: quick
Reviewer seems not an experts.
good point: quick
n/a
n/a
8 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.
n/a
n/a
4 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!
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!
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
n/a
n/a
17 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.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
very fast rejection
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
6.1 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
5.9 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
28 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.
1.4 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
16 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.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
21 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.