Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The handling took long (overall more than 10 months, 3 revised versions submitted).
The comments of one reviewer were detailed and of high quality, the comments of the second reviewer were superficial.
The comments of one reviewer were detailed and of high quality, the comments of the second reviewer were superficial.
6.9 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
An associate editor which has reviewed the manuscript does not believe in one of the main tools quantitative genetics has developped in the last 20 years and recommends to reject the manuscript to discourage further research into this direction.
The key sentences of the associate editor's review:
"Personally, I do not believe that prediction of genetic values (additive, dominant or additive by additive) should be performed with Whole Genome Regression (WGR) methods for reasons that I discuss below. Notice that this is not to say WGR are useless, because they serve as the main tool for GWAS.... At this point, like many other papers, this research adds to the confusion on the value of WGR for predicting genetic effects that have been defined within a quantitative genetics framework.
To summarize, I recommend rejection of the manuscript to discourage further research on prediction of genetic effects with WGR... "
The key sentences of the associate editor's review:
"Personally, I do not believe that prediction of genetic values (additive, dominant or additive by additive) should be performed with Whole Genome Regression (WGR) methods for reasons that I discuss below. Notice that this is not to say WGR are useless, because they serve as the main tool for GWAS.... At this point, like many other papers, this research adds to the confusion on the value of WGR for predicting genetic effects that have been defined within a quantitative genetics framework.
To summarize, I recommend rejection of the manuscript to discourage further research on prediction of genetic effects with WGR... "
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Although the comments of the reviewers were good, editor advised rejection as it was deemed outside the scope. This rejection was responded on by us, but know answer was provided.
7.1 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
This is a good journal. The Editor and reviews are very good.