Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.1 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
29.0 weeks
54.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Drawn back
2018
13.0 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
the revision process was good, It took 4 month for acceptance. But I found a problem in proof-editing.
10.6 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
13.1 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
14.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
6.0 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
33.7 weeks
52.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
10 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.
9.3 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
8.0 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
78.1 weeks
91.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
21.3 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
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.
9.0 weeks
53.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
5.9 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
n/a
n/a
39 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.
16.6 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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!
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 26.0 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.
38.7 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 239.0 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.
17.4 weeks
69.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
8.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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!
2.7 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
The communication with the editor was very swift and pleasant.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 121.6 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.
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.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 230.0 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.
13.1 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
5.7 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Overall the process was smooth, however the single review was a disappointment.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Reviewer critiques were extensive and well-documented. Reviewer feedback was useful in significantly revising and restructuring our manuscript before resubmission elsewhere.
6.4 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
10.8 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
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.
7.0 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
12.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
It took a long time to assign Editor. Once Editor was assigned, the process was much quicker.
21.1 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
15.0 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Reviewing process is smooth and valid reasons for rejection were given