Reviews for "PLoS Genetics"

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 Genetics 10.3
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Excellent editorial office, selected reviewers that knew the subject and provided positive suggestions, quick response from the editor and the journal. Overall one of the best journals I have worked with.
PLoS Genetics 7.1
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
PLoS Genetics 6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2014
Motivation: One of the three reviews seemed hypercritical.
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: We sent our manuscript at 8 AM and received a response within hours, I remember the decision letter stating that our manuscript almost "caught their attention". Our manuscript ended up being accepted in a similar journal.
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
PLoS Genetics 4.9
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Initial rejection letter was 100% boilerplate text that provided no context for decision or who made it. Follow-up correspondence revealed that PLOS Genetics apparently has an internal policy that gene expression profiling studies should have follow-up experiments to provide insight into biological/genetic mechanisms, although this is not stated in the journal scope or criteria for publication.
PLoS Genetics 2.5
weeks
3.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2012
Motivation: The review process was very quick and efficient. The reviewer's suggestions improved the quality of the manuscript immensely.
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
PLoS Genetics 10.8
weeks
20.2
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: I think the reviewers put effort in their reviews, and the paper became better thanks to the reviews. The whole process took long though, and I felt it wasn't necessary to send the paper to the reviewers a third time.
PLoS Genetics n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2011