Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
2025
Motivation:
Manuscript was reviewed by two people. One gave very minor revisions, all text based, the other wanted a thesis of new experiments done. Even though this was accapted with minor revisions, the editor wrote back two days later saying they changed their mind. Easily the most unprofessional journal out there.
3.4 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
Editorial process was swift and efficient. The reviews were critical, improved the manuscript, and were fair.
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
The reviewers' (x3) comments were reasonable; mostly editorial and without any great insights. However, the editor did not follow suit and made the overriding decision to reject with the possibility to make a new submission following an additional experiment.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
While there was no constructive feedback provided, I'd sooner receive the rejection decision early at editorial level and avoid the possibility of months under peer review before finally reaching a decision.
1.7 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014