Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Fairly quick initial screening.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
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
Accepted
2020
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
Accepted
2018
3.9 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2019
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
4.1 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
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
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
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.)
2017
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
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
Accepted
2015
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
Accepted
2015
13.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
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.