Reviews for "PeerJ"

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 Year
PeerJ 7.0
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2018
PeerJ n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Very fast and efficient website. I really appreciate that the response was fast, and I didn't need to do massive formatting work on the manuscript. I only wished that the paper was reviewed before being declined.
PeerJ 7.6
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: I had a great experience with PeerJ. Reviews were thoughtful and helpful. Reviewers also made their names available (not sure if this is optional or not). The submission process was thorough, and their submission system is very modern - for example, you can select which handling editors you recommend according to their expertise. I think the submission set up helps cut down on review time overall, which I really appreciate. They were very strict about including all data, code, and sampling permits, which takes time but is ethically extremely important. PeerJ sometimes waives publication fees as temporary promotions, so if you are concerned about the open-access fees make sure to check their website, social media, or with their managing editors.
PeerJ 2.4
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Overall quality of reviews and journal submission system is excellent. Editor was not a subject area expert and deferred to nitpicking of reviewers too much, requiring multiple rounds of review that could have been more efficiently handled.
PeerJ 2.9
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Very fast and nice review system. Easy and uncomplicated submission system.
PeerJ 4.6
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Reviewer comment were clear and the overall process was fast. The communication with editor and journal staff was excellent.
PeerJ 3.7
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Fair review process. Partly open review. Very helpful staff, and good copy-editing process.
PeerJ 6.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Reviews were relatively fast, and especially the comments by the editor were very good.
PeerJ 2.0
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Fast and correct review precess
PeerJ 4.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Fast process.
PeerJ n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: The paper was immediately rejected because it was considered as out of scope of the journal. The positive things are the nicest submission system I've seen, and the impressively quick reaction by the editors (it took them just a few hours to reply). However, I wrote a rebuttal that the journal lists that topic in their scope, and I cited several similar papers that were published in journals of similar scope. I have never received a response, so my experience is mixed.