Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
4
Accepted
2013
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2015
6.7 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Excellent and very thorough reviews, in after about 6 weeks. Helpful points and useful criticism which helped us improve the paper. Second review round took another while but we didn't get any reports, just the editor's acceptance, so don't know whether it was sent out for review again or whether the editor handled the revisions. Overall, happy with this experience. The one thing I don't like about this journal is that they don't do author proofs.
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The reviewers took a very long time to reject the paper. The article submitted was within the self-imposed criteria of Plos One. Only one reviewer objected entirely and sounded biases, yet the article was not send to a third reviewer to provide a fair review. The reviewer who objected wanted to have an entirely different study produced and did not really take any interest in what data was provided.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60.0 days
Drawn back
2014
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 33.0 days
Drawn back
2014
Motivation: The manuscript kept going back and forth between the Editor and us, each time requesting clarifications, many of which were already given in past iterations. We finally decided enough was enough.
8.0 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
Motivation: PLOS One took a long time to find an academic editor.
14.6 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The only problem was the delayed iterative process of selecting an academic editor for the MS. After that I was really very satisfied with both the quality and speed of the review process.
5.0 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2013
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Drawn back
2013
Motivation: It should not take 4 months to get a decision.
5.5 weeks
7.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
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 reports
2
0
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 reports
4
4
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 reports
4
3
Accepted
2013
3.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
2013
6.4 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
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 reports
3
3
Accepted
2012
Motivation: Very speedy and professional review process.
13.0 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2011
Motivation: The reviewers were clearly experts, and gave a rapid but thorough review.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
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 reports
3
2
Rejected
2013