Reviews for "PLoS Biology"

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
PLoS Biology 7.4
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Unfortunately, one of the reviewers was clearly biased, tried to delay the manuscript as much as possible, and reduce its impact. Additionally, the duration from acceptance to publication was very long (45 days) due to ongoing requests by the editorial staff (to replace individual words and perform other minor changes).
PLoS Biology 8.0
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: First reviews took too long to be communicated to me.
Second round of reviews was not really necessary; final amendments requested by editor would have sufficed. This was an extremely short paper.
PLoS Biology n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
PLoS Biology 14.9
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013
PLoS Biology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
PLoS Biology 6.4
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Process a bit long, apparently due to reviewer mobilization. Manuscript initially submitted to the journal three months before, and proposal was made by the editor to perform some experiments before sending it to review. Good contact with the editor though.
Some experiments or adjustments in the text could have been easily performed. The absence of proposal for revision is thus disappointing.
PLoS Biology n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Fair process. Proposition to resubmit if new data could be added regarding the editor's comments.
PLoS Biology n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
PLoS Biology n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
PLoS Biology n/a n/a 38.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2011