Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation: Even though the outcome was disappointing, I appreciated the fast decision time and a nicely written notification email from the editor.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: After reading our presubmission inquiry, the editor did not encourage us to submit the paper due to lack of impact. He suggested to consider PLoS ONE, which I felt little insulting. But we saved some time and appreciated the fast decision.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
8.9 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2020
10.9 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
2020
Motivation: When we first submitted our manuscript, editors took a week or 10 days to decide whether or not they will send it for external review. The first external review took the longest time - a little more than 2 months. We got a major revision, reviewer comments helped us in improving our manuscript. Once we submitted this revised version and the editors were satisfied with the changes made, there were several round of minor revisions in the next 2 months till we got final official acceptance.
7.4 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
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).
8.0 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
3
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.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2013
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
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.
n/a
n/a
12 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.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
n/a
n/a
38 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2011