Reviews for "PLoS ONE"

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 ONE 9.0
weeks
53.4
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: This was a very slow and challenging process. Our original reviews were not well thought out, but after we responded to them the editor accepted the paper. But then the journal reversed that decision and sent us four additional reviews on top of the additional 3 to respond to. Then once we addressed all of those it took another 6 months for them to assign us a new editor and make a decision. It seems that they are struggling to find enough editors to handle all of the submissions they are receiving. While the staff at the journal were pleasant and did their best, I will not be submitting to PLOS ONE again unless I hear they've gotten this issue under control.
PLoS ONE 5.9
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 39.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: The Plos ONE review process has been the worst review process of any journal I've publish in to date. The manuscript was submitted in August, after queries, the journal staff assured that the manuscript was going out for peer review, then after a month and a half, the manuscript was rejected within a day of being viewed by a subject editor. The reasons for rejection were demonstrably false statements about the manuscript. An appeal was submitted and accepted, and the manuscript was resubmitted November 21, 2017. Now it is February 13, 2018, and "Editor Invited" has been the status for over two months.
PLoS ONE 16.6
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: After a month of back and forth on quality control issues manuscript supposedly went to review. Another two months went by without change so I provided more reviewer names. This process transpired two more times until I heard they have reviews but no academic editor. I met an associate editor at the journal’s booth at a major conference after 5 months of no decision who actually informed me of the reviews and that they were good. Some more academic editor suggestions to this associate editor for another two months led to total complete belief of incompetence and eventual withdrawal. The day after the withdrawal I was informed by this associate editor that the reviews are especially good to the extent that I should resubmit. I resubmitted with hopes an actual academic editor would accept the responsibility to be handler and make a first decision off those previous two reviewers. The day after resubmitting I received the previous reviewers which were good! With hopes an academic editor would pick it up soon I waited 1.5 months. Finally I receive a decision, major revision, with different reviews. I took 1.5 months to revise. Within 10 days of resubmission received an acceptance after 9 months!
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 26 days Drawn back 2017
Motivation: We submitted a manuscript which was returned 3.7 weeks later with a note from the Academic Editor requesting revisions to the abstract, clarity on access to data, and more details on the methods. The editorial office also requested a copy of the LaTeX source document and some details on roles and conflicts of interest. We turned all this around in around 4 days and resubmitted. The Editorial Manager interface indicates that the manuscript is out for review. However, it's been over 90 days since the original submission and any inquiries have been responded to promptly with what appears to be polite boilerplate text from the editorial office. This experience is in contrast to an earlier submission, which underwent final disposition (acceptance) including a revision in 87 days. It's possible that the process is simply overwhelmed by many submissions and this is an outlier experience but I must confess to a loss of confidence. So we've requested withdrawal of the manuscript and will find another journal.
PLoS ONE 38.7
weeks
38.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: We sent our work to PLOS One because it is supposed to provide high-quality, fast reviews. We asked every couple of months, and the paper, at least up to the 6th month, did not have an assigned editor yet. We finally got the reviews after 8 months, with one reviewer advising acceptance and one reviewer rejection, and got an outright rejection. I believe that we should have gotten a third review, and that the two reviews we got are not high quality and were not fast. Overall, a disappointing (and slow) experience.
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 239 days Drawn back 2017
Motivation: We decided to submit to PLoS ONE because we wanted to make our research and especially the underlying data and codes open access. The administrative procedure went really smooth and the search for an academic editor was on its way quite fast. Afterwards it took 3 months to assign the paper to an academic editor. After three more months we were informed that the Journal is again looking for an academic editor. After in total 8 months we decided to withdraw our work. During the whole process (at different points in time) we proposed two potential academic editors from the Journal's list and 4 reviewers from our field.
PLoS ONE 17.4
weeks
69.4
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back 2015
Motivation: After submission of the first revision, the editor was unavailable. Plos ONE did not find a new editor for about one year. So we decided to withdraw our manuscript and submit elsewhere.
PLoS ONE 8.4
weeks
22.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: The reviewers in my opinion did not even try to understand the concept of the study. The authors tried their best. Added more explanations where ever asked. But the reviewers made lame reviews in the end targeting english proficiency of the first author. The first author is a native english speaker. The manuscript was still sent to a language expert and they found the english absolutely fine. After wasting approximately 4 months the journal rejected the paper without giving detailed reasons. Therefore to conclude, they could neither find competent reviewers and neither helped the authors when the reviewers were not doing a satisfactory job. Pathetic experience!
PLoS ONE 2.7
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The process was quick, the reviewers were focused and their remarks contributed to the paper.
The communication with the editor was very swift and pleasant.
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 121 days Drawn back 2017
Motivation: After three months after submitting my article, I sent a query to the journal to get an update on the submission. They informed they did not have an academic editor asigned to it.
I waited another month and since I got no new updates, I asked the journal again. They still had not get an editor for the paper. I am withdrawing the article after losing four precious months.
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 230 days Drawn back 2017
Motivation: I sent the paper to PLoS ONE, because the topic was something that would be interesting to a wide audience (it was about a linguistic analysis on Pokemon names). Since PLoS ONE takes pride in its fast turn-around time, after 3 month of silence, I sent an inquiry almost every month. Every time, they came back to me with a boiler plate email saying that "I guarantee that your manuscript is getting our full attention". After 7.5 months, I decided that what they are claiming is simply not true.
PLoS ONE 13.1
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Once reviewers were found the process was quite quick. However, considering PLoS's claims of rapid publishing times, we found the process quite lengthy. We were contacted one month after our initial submission asking us to nominate an academic editor. Two weeks later, the academic editor contacted us again to ask us to nominate reviewers. Considering the fee to publish, it felt a little like we were doing their jobs for them.
PLoS ONE 5.7
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Overall the process was smooth, however the single review was a disappointment.
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
PLoS ONE 7.4
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2015
PLoS ONE 9.4
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Reviewer critiques were extensive and well-documented. Reviewer feedback was useful in significantly revising and restructuring our manuscript before resubmission elsewhere.
PLoS ONE 6.4
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
PLoS ONE 10.8
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: We experienced serious delays and issues during the review process, raising serious concerns about the reliability and overall quality of the journal.

The first review round took 2.5 months. The revised version of our manuscript was submitted on February 1, 2017. Then, our understanding was that the manuscript passed the technical check and was submitted to the Academic Editor (likely the same who revised the paper the first time). In fact, the status of the manuscript in the editorial manager changed from "Manuscript submitted to the journal" to "With the Editor".

After two months, we asked an update on the revision status and we were told that our manuscript was "currently being sent out for assignment to an Academic Editor" (a different one?). After that, the status returned to "Manuscript submitted to the journal" and remained the same for 30 days.

After three months from the new submission, the Editorial Office failed to find an Academic
Editor and eventually stopped replying to our emails. Therefore, although all the requests from the reviewers were addressed properly, we decided to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration by the journal.
PLoS ONE 7.0
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: When a reviewer was delayed in uploading their comments, the journal reached out to me to share a status update, which I greatly appreciated. Appreciated relatively quick turnaround times.
PLoS ONE 12.1
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: It took a long time to assign Editor. Once Editor was assigned, the process was much quicker.
PLoS ONE 21.1
weeks
21.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The time to first review was very slow, especially for a journal that advertises itself as accelerating science. However, given the speed at which the manuscript was processed after resubmission, the delay may have been on the reviewers end more than the journal. One of the reviews had very little substance and was not very helpful but the second was generally good.
PLoS ONE 15.0
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Lost editor during summer, although PLoS stated that the new editor would take delay into account, it stool took 15 weeks before we had an outcome. Review reports were brief but fair. Second round of reviewing went faster.
PLoS ONE 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: Reviewing process is smooth and valid reasons for rejection were given
PLoS ONE 17.4
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
PLoS ONE 9.6
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
PLoS ONE 9.7
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Good quality reviews but I was hoping for a quicker process. It was not that long however.
PLoS ONE 17.4
weeks
17.5
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2015
PLoS ONE 23.3
weeks
23.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The paper was under review for almost six months and we only received the comments from one reviewer. Those were good but it was not the speedy review process we had expected. The editorial office was then super quick to make a decision.
PLoS ONE 15.7
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The reviewers were helpful and fast, with two rounds taking only ~4-5 weeks total. We had the paper for two weeks for revision. The remainder, ~5.5 months, was dragged out by poor editorial handling. We waited >1 month before an editor and reviewers were found.

As an example of the poor editorial handling, the editorial office told us (because we complained about the slowness) that the second round of reviews had been completed, yet our status remained "under review" for 3 weeks afterward instead of "required reviews complete" or "awaiting editorial decision". And no further revisions were requested by reviewers, so the editor had no excuse to wait that length of time.

Publication production was very fast, taking only a week from formal acceptance to online publication.
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: I do not have any complaining about the speed of the journal. However I am not able to apreciate the reasons for the rejection. Journals, like Plos One, claim that they are not interested in percieved impact. But in my expreience they do, (somewhere in the deep). My manuscript was about genome-wide identification of an enzyme family in a group of single-celled eukaryotes. Editor thinks that blasting for the presence or absence of genes from publicly avaible data is not a primary scientific research (a criterion for publication with PlosONE). But I can show countless number of these kind of studies. Even one published in Plos One. He also found my phylogenetic analyses limited. This sounds to me that editor seeks an impact. Therefore, Plos One and that kind of journals should stop involving the name of Academic Editor in the accepted manuscript. Some "arrogant" editors do not want to be part of a nonimpactful paper. That is my theory.
PLoS ONE 7.4
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: They had a hard time finding a handling editor. But once they found one, she dealt with it amazingly fast, within 2 weeks.
PLoS ONE Drawn back before first editorial decision after 121 days Drawn back 2014
Motivation: As on previous occassions, Plos One failed to find a willing editor within a reasonable time frame. Hence, we decided to withdraw and has since published it elsewhere.
PLoS ONE 10.1
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
PLoS ONE 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back 2013
Motivation: We received one review that was six pages, single-spaced. The review was incoherent with incomplete sentences and we had no idea what the reviewer even wanted. The review contained a misquote of Shakespeare. Because we had no idea what the reviewer even wanted, we chose to withdraw and go to another journal. The paper ended up being published in another journal with a higher impact factor.
PLoS ONE 8.6
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
PLoS ONE 5.4
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Nice and professional experience overall. It took 2 weeks to find the editor, but the reviewers returned their reports very quickly. The reports were carefully prepared and they were helpful, better than what I usually I get from specialised journals and conferences in my field. I did not have much interation with the editor, but he was efficient in the process with quick turnarounds. I like the policy that they don't judge the novelty and impact of the work, so in theory a technically and scientifically sound paper cannot be rejected due to the subjective view of a reviewer and/or editor. Once the paper was accepted it was published quicker than my previously published work with Elsevier and other major well-known publishers. I did not give a perfect score because there were some small annoying things: for figures they accept only ancient TIF and EPS formats and the process of their submission is tedious, the LaTeX template supports only rudimentary citing (no \citet command), the manuscript has to be submitted without figures included (which makes it difficult to read and it's non-sense), and the publisher doesn't send the proof of the typeset PDF to authors before publication (so the final published paper may contain errors; mine luckily didn't have any errors but I can imagine errors may happen). Furthermore, once the paper was accepted, the production department returned it to me for very minor things they could fix themselves in a few minutes. Overall, in my case PLOS ONE gave an impression of a serious, professional, well organised and efficient journal and I think that I will submit to PLOS ONE again.
PLoS ONE 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
PLoS ONE 12.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Instead of the promised 'one month to review', we waited 3 months. Got an email that they were having trouble finding reviewers after 3 months. Then a few days later, they sent one apparently fairly hasty statistical review. There were several excellent comments that would have been readily addressed. The reviewer's main concern, however, indicate s/he had not read the manuscript very closely (did not understand the main dependent variable despite descriptions in methods and figures). This feels like we did not receive a proper peer review...and waiting this long only to then receive minimal review, is highly disappointing and beneath what I'd expect of PLoS ONE.
PLoS ONE 13.3
weeks
39.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015