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 3.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Smooth from the beginning to the end; some useful comments from the reviewers.
PLoS ONE 17.1
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Clear communication from the editorial office and the editor and reviewers provided very helpful suggestions on how to improve the paper.
PLoS ONE 24.0
weeks
24.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: The reviewers' comments could have easily been addressed, but the editor did not give us this opportunity. This shows a lack of respect for the reviewers' time and expertise.
PLoS ONE 8.9
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Overall, the review process was great. The reviewer reports were helpful and the revised manuscript was much improved through their feedback. The initial reviewer reports took some time to be received due to the original handling editor taking a leave (thus, needing a new handling editor), but the process was extremely quick following the assignment of a new editor. Overall, I am pleased with the process.
PLoS ONE 52.3
weeks
52.3
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back 2020
Motivation: Our experience with PLoS One was a disaster. The manuscript was re-assigned to different editors multiple times and after 1 year we decided to withdraw the manuscript because we never received a first decision. Upon withdrawing the manuscript the journal provided us with the comments from one reviewer. Interaction with the journal was infuriating and 9/10 times we just got boilerplate responses.
PLoS ONE 23.6
weeks
23.6
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: They have spent much time to make the first decision
PLoS ONE 3.9
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
PLoS ONE 25.9
weeks
27.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: It took over 4 months to assign an editor. The assigned editor withdrew twice. The reviewers needed another 2 months to respond. Via an appeal we were allowed to send a second revision as one of the reviewer’s response on the revision was in contrast to the original response. It took another 5 months to process the appeal again PlosOne had problems assigning an editor. So in total it took 14 months to receive a rejection.
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
PLoS ONE 15.1
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: Trash journal. One reviewer had minor revisions recommended, the other major. Editor then took the liberty to reject it outright, without any helpful feedback, and then refused to provide any useful feedback when approached. Very slow process and ultimately a huge waste of time. Do not submit here.
PLoS ONE 12.7
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The review process took quite long.
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
PLoS ONE 10.8
weeks
21.2
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: A total review time of 5.5 months seems unreasonable (our editing contributed about 1 month to this). When the first round of edits are purely editorial, one might expect that the AE would make the call at that point rather than sending the manuscript out for a second round. When the second round of reviews consists of one review with comments that were addressed in under an hour by a find-and-replace and the addition of a single line to the text such that the manuscript was resubmitted within hours of receiving the "reviews", the AE should certainly make the call at that point. When the third round of reviews consist of no comments, one might start to wonder about the purpose of the second and third rounds of review. Personally, I started wondering if our bacteria had evolved since the initial submission, and were no longer considered part of the genus.

The one positive was that the invoice arrived in my inbox days after acceptance. Incredibly efficient! Well done, PLoS One.
PLoS ONE 36.3
weeks
45.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The process took too long.
PLoS ONE 4.4
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: The reviewer commented that the results are over-interpreted and the conclusions are not supported by data. However, the reviewer didn't offer reason.
PLoS ONE 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: I submitted my manuscript and the initial process was very slow. I got periodic responses that appeared to be automatic form letters and/or that they were having trouble finding an academic editor and reviewers. Eventually I received a rejection. However that decision was based on the comments from 1 reviewer and it was apparent that the paper was not read, nor were the comments about the content of the submission nor were the reasons for rejection, logical. Consequently I appealed the decision. That was a mistake because it took an additional 7 months to get a decision. I would get periodic emails apologizing for the delays indicating that a decision would come soon. Eventually following numerous email exchanges, I demanded that a decision be made. A week later the paper was rejected based on the opinion of one reviewer.. Having published numerous papers over the years I was disappointed but can accept the decisions. However no paper should take 10 months from submission to final decision, and one would expect that if reviews come back that are poor themselves, an additional reviewer would be identified.
PLoS ONE 7.0
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
PLoS ONE 7.9
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: I have seen comments stating that the Plos One editorial process is quite slow, but while it did take a while for us to publish, it had more to do with addressing the reviewers comments than the editorial process itself. The comments were quite helpful, and the manuscript was greatly improved because of them. It was quite clear that our manuscript was evaluated by specialists in our subject area.
PLoS ONE 6.1
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: Reviewer 1 said paper was great and should be published
Reviewer 2 asked for clarifications and improvements
Reviewer 3 wrote an illegible, incredibly negative review and clearly did not have sufficient english language skills to understand the paper. Also asked for experiments that would be ethically questionable in most countries.

Regardless, we did our best to respond and altered the manuscript to appease the negative reviewer. The editor sent the paper back to Reviewer 2 and 3. Reviewer 2 was happy with our changes and recommended publish. Reviewer 3, yet again wrote an aggressive, borderline illegible response and recommended reject.

Unfortunately the editor completely ignored two clearly worded, well thought out reviews that recommended publish and went with what could be seen by most as a hostile review. If the editor had bothered to read the review it would be clear that the reviewer was not suitable for the role. We are very disappointed that he allowed this reviewer to have so much sway.
PLoS ONE 11.3
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The first round decision (i.e., from initial submission to the first round decision following reviews) did take a long time. The quality of the reviews varied, but it helped that the editor got 3 reviewers for my paper. I did get some good feedback and I think it was warranted to have 3 reviewers on this paper. Following the first round of reviews and decision, the length for the remainder of the process was mostly because I took the full time to submit revisions. The editor made timely decisions and also provided very helpful feedback and summaries of the 3 reviewers statements. I did not particularly like the delivery system for the reviews as some of the general fields are not all that helpful. The reviews did greatly improve my paper and I was very happy overall with the process. The process moves very quickly once the article is accepted, which is also very nice. I had a really great editor so that definitely made my experience very positive. It is also helpful that they have the waiver/fee assistance for graduate students that do not have funding to pay the open access/publication fee.
PLoS ONE 8.1
weeks
21.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
PLoS ONE 29.0
weeks
54.3
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Drawn back 2018
PLoS ONE 13.0
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: the revision process was good, It took 4 month for acceptance. But I found a problem in proof-editing.
PLoS ONE 10.6
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Good communication with journal. The three reviewers raised questions that greatly helped us in clarifying our manuscript. Some of the questions raised about our statistical analyses seemed rather basic and perhaps could have been filtered out by the editor. Overall, we were very satisfied with the experience.
PLoS ONE 5.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Only complaint: in our view the reviewer's comments could have been rather easily accommodated in a revision, clearly the editor thought otherwise.
PLoS ONE 13.1
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted 2013
PLoS ONE 14.1
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
PLoS ONE 6.0
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Fast handling of manuscript. One review was very thorough, the second a bit short, but overall both helped to improve the manuscript.
PLoS ONE 11.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: I had a very bad experience with submitting in PLoS One. After 5 weeks of revision, we email the editor. She said that she had only one revision and she had asked more than eleven potential reviewers. The entire review process took very long time (11 weeks) and we received one bad revision and another consisting in two lines saying that our work was ok but already published somewhere but the reviewer did not include that reference.
PLoS ONE 33.7
weeks
52.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: In the overall, review comments were fairly constructive and helpful. However, the editorial process was not that efficient. It took more than six months until the initial decision was rendered. Most of the time, the journal office could not find any AE who shall handle my manuscript and the initial decision was rendered by one of their in-house editors. The review process of the revised manuscript was not that better. The journal office spent nearly a couple of months to invite an AE. I had to email the journal office almost monthly to keep all the things not being forgotten and/or abandoned by the office staff.
PLoS ONE n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Reason given: Interesting but not to a wide enough audience, also not mechanistic enough.
PLoS ONE 9.3
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
PLoS ONE 8.0
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Worst journal experience I've had - I will never go back. It took nearly 3 months to get a final decision after we submitted our revised manuscript that was "accepted with minor revision". Most other journals would have turned it around in a few days. I had to repeatedly bug staff editors and eventually complained directly to the editor in chief, and after that things were sped up so that it "only" took an additional month. I threatened to withdraw the manuscript several times, and lost complete faith in the journal's ability to provide a decision. The journal talks about speedy publication, but the only thing that happened fast was me getting the bill - that was lightning fast.
PLoS ONE 78.1
weeks
91.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2018
PLoS ONE 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: I had very bad experience on submitting in PLoS One. The review process took very long time and we received only one review comment.
PLoS ONE 21.3
weeks
21.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back 2018
Motivation:
The process took ? months. We asked several times (how many) about the manuscript. The editor answered that he had not found reviewers. Finally, the rejection came. There were three reviews, and none of them suggested rejection. One suggested minor and two assessed the topic interesting and emerging. The editor required more experiments although none of the reviewers suggested more experiments. After a while, we got to know that there had been one more review that had been very positive. We came to know about this review, because the reviewer in question contacted us and told about it.

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