Reviews for "Microbiome"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
19.9
weeks
29.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2022
Motivation: The whole process took a bit longer than expected, mostly because it is getting harder and harder to get reviewers that are willing to peer-review the publications. This might be an overall problem in the scientific community, especially for journals that, even though have a high impact factor, are not that "well known". Overall, we were in contact with the editors, who kept us updated on the review process.
PD: If you are trying to publish your work quickly, I would maybe advise another journal.
18.3
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: Very long waiting time for the process, no feedback during 4 months, no update on the platform. It is impossible to contact the editor directly when this kind of problem is present (only the use of the platform). A final decision that did not take into consideration at all the reviewers comments that were all very nice, positive, and encouraging. We asked for an explanation to the editor since the decision was at the opposite of the reviewers comments but the editor never replied to us.... = a waste of 5 months during this process that it is really problematic in view of the high competition in the field ! No positive experiences during the process.
n/a n/a 99.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 84 days Drawn back 2018
Motivation: I sent to Microbiome a review about the female genital tract microbiota and its relationship with the mucosal immune system, in which we proposed a new hypothesis about the etiology of endometriosis. We chose this journal trying to publish it quickly, because its web site stated as mean time of the first revision 32 days. The assigned editor retained the manuscript for 12 weeks without sending it to external reviewers. After requesting information twice (August 16th and 27th), no reasonable explanation was provided about this delay. In fact the editor did not answer my request.
3.9
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
n/a n/a 88.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Several weeks after submission the editorial office told me (upon request) that they didnt assign an editor to handle the manuscript yet. After 3 months I got an email rejecting the paper as not suitable for the journal, without any further explanation.