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 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Elife n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Motivation: We sent another manuscript and the immediate rejection time was 11 days.
Every time after 7 days I was sent an email where they apologised for a delay to the initial evaluation of our article and that they were working with the editors to ensure further delays to be minimised.
For me 11-13 days for an immediate rejection is an unnecessary time loss.
Elife n/a n/a 25.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: eLife took 25 days to first decision, although they advertise 7 days with no mention of the variance. The reason they gave for the delay was that the paper "was not easy to judge". If that is the case, I would have greatly appreciated that they either state that the 7 day figure applies to papers that are "easy to judge" or make the variance in first decision times public. That could have saved me (and them) 25 valuable days.
Elife 4.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The whole process was very smooth and professional. The editors were very willing to work with you to get the manuscript accepted. They were also very good at keeping me up-to-date with where the manuscript was at in the review process. Everything was very transparent.
Elife n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Elife 7.3
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: At the time eLife was billing a fast turnaround time and I didn't get that. The office were good about communicating with me about the delays in reviewing the paper. Overall the review process was great. The reports were synthesized into a sensible decision letter, moreover the reviews are published online at this journal.
Elife 6.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: Elife manuscript sumbissoin system was relatively painless, although office staff requested reformatting of supplemental files before review, which was unnecessary. Review process was fast and fair, but quality of reviews was not as high as I hoped.
Elife 5.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2012
Motivation: Although this a new journal my feel is that this will be become a high profile one. I say this from the overall quality of the papers, the projection in the general media and the new sub-jounals that have been recently generated. The website is also very well made.
In terms of the review process, the first round took a wile, but i think this is not the trend (i think they disclose the time it takes somewhere).
The big thing in terms of the review process that I really like and that I think is a major step forwards in the review process is that the reviewers and the editor discuss between themselves the paper before making a decision. They decide the value of the discovery and what additional exps need to be done in order to prove your point. As opposed to grumpy reviewers that send you a huje list of (mostly) stupid exps and issues that you spend a ton of time trying to address. I really think this is an example to other journals.
Overall I really recommended it. Even if your paper is rejected I think you should be able to get a relatively fast and fare evaluation of you manuscript.
Elife 3.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: Unlike promises made by other new journals, eLife stood by their promises. The review process was fast, fair and transparent. This was by far the best review experience I have ever had, and that for a journal that has ambitions to rival the best. If you have a great paper, forget about PNAS or Nature Comm, send it to eLife!