Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
15.2 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The review process was very long and the reviewer's criticisms do not improve the manuscript
6.0 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The first and (arguably) second revision clearly improved quality. Thereafter, only incremental improvement(s). Referees made contradictory recommendations, seeded to get lost in irrelevant details, and did not always understand the nomenclature. After the 3rd revision they wanted some request from the first revision reverted (so it appeaed).
The editorial office was unhelpful (no decision making power, stonewalled contacting the editor).
I googled the editor, sent him an email to his work email (not the editorial email). He responded within 30 min (on a Sunday!!), reviewed all evidence from the 18 months /4 revisions process. It was all the time handled by a sub-editor who did not make a decision, it seemed.
We had a conversation over the phone the next day and later the day the Journal sent an acceptance letter.
At last a satisfactory outcome and the editor handled it professionally at the end.
The editorial office was unhelpful (no decision making power, stonewalled contacting the editor).
I googled the editor, sent him an email to his work email (not the editorial email). He responded within 30 min (on a Sunday!!), reviewed all evidence from the 18 months /4 revisions process. It was all the time handled by a sub-editor who did not make a decision, it seemed.
We had a conversation over the phone the next day and later the day the Journal sent an acceptance letter.
At last a satisfactory outcome and the editor handled it professionally at the end.
0.7 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The comments and requests of the reviewers were very precise and coherent to our work and the initial submission was inside an acceptable time frame (first submission 11.04.2018; reviewers comments letter (with the feedeback arrived on 21.05.18). The waiting time after resubmission was longer (16.07.2018 - 28.09.2018), however for a good journal like Oncogene might be still in order.
6.1 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
While the editor and reviewers requested several experiments in the first round of revision, the requirements were clear. Once we met those requirements, the editor accepted the manuscript.
5.7 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Oncogene is a very good journal in regards to scientific information. The journal handles the article very sincerely without any bias and the reviewers read the article very carefully. The time from submission to acceptance is also very reasonable but takes long to put on the pubmed. I would like to communicate my articles to this journal in future too.