Reviews for "PeerJ Computer Science"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
PeerJ Computer Science 4.1
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite fast and smooth, even if not as fast the journal website advertises. The reports of the reviewers were quite useful.
PeerJ Computer Science n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After spending hours to adapt my manuscript to the format and style of PeerJ Computer Science and submitting it to this journal, an editor decided after only 1 day that it was unsuitable for the journal's topics, rejected the article, and suggested to resubmit somewhere else.

The editor wrote that the article was more adapted for statistics journal than for PeerJ Computer Science.
I totally disagree with his/her decision.
PeerJ Computer Science 7.9
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers and the editor rejected our manuscript because they said it was missing a comparison with some alternative methods.
It is true that we did not include the comparison with these alternative methods, but for a specific reason: because they were off-topic.
Completely not understandable.

Also, the journal website promises a fast review process of just 25 days from submission to the first notification, but actually they took 52 days to inform us about the outcome: the double expected days,
PeerJ Computer Science 5.4
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast.
The reviewers' comments were strong and precise, but meaningful.
PeerJ Computer Science n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process was fast.
Unfortunately, the editor rejected the paper immediately without even send the it to review.
But most of his/her criticisms about the manuscript were valid and idoneous to the topic.