Follow @scirev on Twitter
Reviews for "PLoS Computational 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 Computational Biology | 7.6 weeks |
7.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected | 2021 |
| PLoS Computational Biology | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2022 |
| PLoS Computational Biology | 8.7 weeks |
13.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2019 |
| PLoS Computational Biology | 10.6 weeks |
10.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2020 |
| Motivation: First, it took a very long period of reviewing time. Though I contacted the editorial office a couple of times, I have never spoken with the editor who was working on my manuscript. Their managing editors kept informing me that they were waiting for the comments from the third reviewer, who didn't exist based on the reviewers' comment report. One of the two reviewers was very positive and discussing constructively, which I really appreciated. The second, however, commented so briefly and not to the point at all as if he/she didn't read the text. The editorial decision was, unfortunately, made based on the second reviewer's comment. | ||||||||
| PLoS Computational Biology | 13.4 weeks |
43.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
0 (very bad) |
Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: Very disappointed with the editorial handling of this manuscript. It usually took ~2 weeks to pass the front office and reach the editor's desk. Then it took another ~2-4 weeks until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Add 8-12 weeks for reviews (which is fine). Rinse and repeat for 3 demanding revisions, and you end up needing 1.5 years just to get through peer review. When we had to contact the editor in between revisions, we would not get a response for weeks until we directly emailed them at their institutional address. Overall this process has been frustratingly slow - would not recommend. | ||||||||
| PLoS Computational Biology | 13.4 weeks |
34.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
0 (very bad) |
Drawn back | 2018 |
| PLoS Computational Biology | 7.9 weeks |
13.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2017 |
| PLoS Computational Biology | n/a | n/a | 6.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2018 |
| PLoS Computational Biology | n/a | n/a | 63.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2018 |
| Motivation: Waiting time too long for rejection without proofreading | ||||||||
| PLoS Computational Biology | 5.0 weeks |
12.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| PLoS Computational Biology | 12.0 weeks |
14.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Accepted | 2015 |
| Motivation: The overall process was very slow. | ||||||||
| PLoS Computational Biology | Drawn back before first editorial decision after 66 days | Drawn back | 2017 | |||||
| PLoS Computational Biology | n/a | n/a | 7.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2016 |
| PLoS Computational Biology | 10.8 weeks |
12.8 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2011 |