Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fairly quick initial screening.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The time for initial decision (two weeks) was a bit too long for a journal claiming "2 Avg Days Initial Editor Screening".
4.6 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The declared manuscript handling delays were respected throughout the process, the peer reviews and comments from the academic editor were in-depth and constructive. The only negative are the relatively high publication fees.
9.1 weeks
12.8 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
3.9 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
4.1 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The submission itself was easy and the review process overall quite fast and painless.
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: No reason given for the rejection: the editor only said that the manuscript was not appropriate for the journal. This is somewhat unconvincing because the topic of the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal, and they have published papers with similar aims and methodologies.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It requires a quite short paper with many restrictions but the review was fair. They wrote that the decision was made without reviews because the Editor's initial assessment indicated that the manuscript would not be appropriate for mBio. They suggested mSphere or mSystem for the manuscript.

4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: One reviewer was extremely positive and the second reviewer was asking many extra experiments not necessary and beyond the scope of the story and the editor was independent enough to not follow the reviewer's request. The paper was awarded by Faculty 1000 which also proofs that the reviewer's request was just ... no comment.
5.0 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
13.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: mBio's submission system was relatively painless (hosted by eJournal press). Files are uploaded before metadata is entered so you don't have to wait for the pdf to build. The journal has unnecessary limits on article length and the number of supplemental files, and doesn't take latex files. Editorially rejected articles are transferred (with permission of the author) to mBio's sister journal AEM, so if you are planning to submit to AEM, it is probably worth shot at mBio first.