Reviews for "PLoS ONE"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
5.5
weeks
7.5
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Fast manuscript handling, with helpfull and fast communication in the submission stage about submission requirement details. Referee reports with useful comments. Overall, an excellent process.
21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2013
Motivation: Aside from the initial review process taking 5 months for a journal who's motto is "accelerating peer reviewed research" I have several reservations about the appropriateness of both the handling editor and reviewers for my manuscripts. Both reviewers openly admitted a lack of basic knowledge of the statistical approaches used in the manuscript, yet critiqued the research for statistical reasons. One of the reasons for rejection given was based on an unsubstantiated opinion of one of the reviewers. The journal indicates that the appeal process takes longer than the initial review process so I am moving on. I will likely never review for this journal again, and will be pretty desperate before sending them another manuscript.
8.0
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: According to the editor, the reason the first round of reviewing took more than PLOS ONE's promised 'month on average' was that it was the summer season. Response after the first inquiry was very fast, and a final decision was made only a few days after resubmission.
17.4
weeks
22.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2013
3.0
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
6.4
weeks
16.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2012
Motivation: Despite providing an array of choices of an associate editor familiar with the paper's subject, it was assigned to an associate editor with no familiarity with it, who in turn selected reviewers similarly unfamiliar with it (and in some cases hostile to this approach). Given that the journal may publish more papers on this approach than any other, this was very disappointing. Furthermore, there was a substantial delay in sending our the manuscript for re-review, after which one of the reviewers criticized our work for not including material that was uploaded as supplementary text (but through some journal glitch, the material was not available to the reviewer). Overall, a minor comedy of errors that could have been avoided with the journal selecting an AE familiar with the subject of the paper.
8.7
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2012
Motivation: Very speedy and professional review process.
13.0
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2011
Motivation: The reviewers were clearly experts, and gave a rapid but thorough review.
4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2012
Motivation: The Editor did not realise that the reviewer were not competent in the field
9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2013