Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2023
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
The reviewers presented fair criticism of our manuscript and it was returned in a timely manner.
2.4 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Insufficient editorial supervision and management of the revision process. The 1st review was useful, however, the manuscript need not have gone back to reviewers the 2nd time (and clearly not the 3rd). Overall a long review process, due to poor editorial handling.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
The editorial staff was professional and quick. Although I disagreed with their findings (and was ultimately proven correct), I appreciated their speed to come to a decision and the balanced manner they presented it.
Immediately accepted after 1.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2019
10.3 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
7.1 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
One of the three reviews seemed hypercritical.
n/a
n/a
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.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
4.9 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
n/a
n/a
5 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.
2.5 weeks
3.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
The review process was very quick and efficient. The reviewer's suggestions improved the quality of the manuscript immensely.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
10.8 weeks
20.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2011