Reviews for "PLoS ONE"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
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.
8.6
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
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.
7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
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.
13.3
weeks
39.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
22.6
weeks
32.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Our paper was accepted, so my poor ratings are nothing to do with sour grapes. However, the editor did not seem especially well-informed in this subject area. While this can't be expected of a specialist journal, a massive enterprise such as PLoS One, with its legion of Editors, should be able to find a suitable editor (or to accept the Editor recommended by the authors). This caused difficulties because she did not challenge some of the frankly ridiculous comments/requests of one of the reviewers. Instead we had to make more and more changes (5 sets of revisions!), although to my mind the law of (exponential) diminishing returns was evident after the second revision. The Ed contented herself with (reading and then...?) following the requests from the reviewers for continual additional revisions. Eventually in complete exasperation, we challenged the reviewer to 'put up or shut up' and they finally conceded that they lacked unawareness of the literature. At that point I was very willing to withdraw the paper and send it elsewhere.
I also found the editor to be particularly thin skinned and frankly patronising, with her parting comment: "I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO ONE ISSUE (WHICH MAY BE OF IMPORTANCE FOR YOUR FUTURE COMMUNICATION WITH EDITORS): all my communication I did address to you (by your name), all your communication to me had been addressed to "[Dear] Editor". I would recommend you to call your future Editors by name. this is just a good communication style" (all caps in original). Now, I agree that it is a courtesy to an Editor to use their name and title, but it is difficult to take lessons about "good communication" from someone who waited until the 6th(!) decision to letter to inform us that her feelings had been hurt! We could have used her name if she pointed out this trivial oversight after letter 1. Moreover the nature of the decision letters (to amend according to the wishes of the reviewers) did nothing to dispel the idea that one was dealing with a nameless automaton. Anyway, no more PLoS submissions for me, I think!
7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: It took about 3 weeks before the paper was even sent out for review.

The editorial process was problematic for us. Our paper was rejected despite one positive and one negative, but flawed, review. Rather than attempting to obtain another opinion, the editor took it upon himself to reject.
8.3
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The first part of the process was rather smooth, but the story was not finished after the primary acceptance. On January 8th 2016 we were informed that during the technical check a potential competing interest between one of the authors and the manuscript-handling Academic Editor was discovered, as they have co-published together within the last five years. It was the journal who selected the handling editor (who was not among the suggested Academic Editors that we were requested to indicate in the submission form). Therefore it's the journal's full responsibility and conflict of interest issues should have been checked at the start of the submission procedure and not after the evaluation of the manuscript.
On January 11th 2016 we have been informed that our manuscript has been assigned to a new Academic Editor and already on January 12th we got the notice that our manuscript did not meet the criteria for publication and therefore has been rejected, giving a very short and scientifically rather doubtful opinion to which we were not asked to respond, thus overruling the decision of the first editor and the reviewers.
We perceived this procedure as enormously disrespectful towards the authors and the reviewers who deemed the manuscript suitable for publication. After having contacted the senior editors and the journal management team asking for a more detailed explanation regarding their decision, there was no reply until this date (29. 4. 2016).
12.0
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: Change of Editors between submissions. Very slow: was not sent for review for at least a month and needed prompting by email to get etc.
15.2
weeks
16.2
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The reviews were of very low quality, we did submit an appeal but after almost 4 months of waiting for an answer we withdraw it
5.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2011
Motivation: Fast review process. Reviewers were experts in the field.
19.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The review took five month
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
7.1
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Editor's input was minimal (essentially a proxy of the reviewer). A single reviewer was involved in the process initially and a second added later on. Minor revisions listed as Major.
14.0
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2016
13.0
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
4.6
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: It seemed reviewers didn't understand the work.
6.0
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The review process was fair, the reviewers comments well considered and informed and turnaround time was reasonable.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 65 days Drawn back 2015
Motivation: I have decided to share this experience because I have never encountered anything like this before: a journal claiming they could not find an editor after more than two months! And not in some obscure topic (plant biology). This is coming from a journal boasting “speed to publication”… Ridiculous!
30.4
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The process was quick to be a high-impact journal and demand. Corrections were positive friendly language. Trabjo visibility was very hight, around 1700 views in a year.
8.7
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2015
13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
7.1
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: the review process could be finished in a much shorter period, especially after the first review round. Also the time required from submission to first decision was a bit long.
4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The referee based on its "eventual" experience did not believe the results. Only after same mails directly with the editor the manuscript was accepted.
1.6
weeks
2.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2012
Motivation: Everything moved very quickly as the reviewer comments were things that we had somewhat expected may be questioned. Comments were mostly minor but extremely helpful.
21.7
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2012
34.0
weeks
42.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
6.5
weeks
10.8
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: They were very quick and give good feedback to improve the paper.
5.7
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: The 1st review process was a little long, however the comments were constructive and just require some re-analysis of experiments already done. The work was improved by doing the suggestions of the three reviewers.
7.3
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: I felt tha the review process improved my paper, there was some external views on the data I'd not considered and the manuscript was improved when a couple of small errors was highlighted. The editorial team worked hard and therer was a quick turn around. The paper was accepted and is now available to be read and downloaded.
13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
6.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
6.7
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
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 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
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 days Drawn back 2014
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 33 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 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: PLOS One took a long time to find an academic editor.
14.6
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
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 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Drawn back 2013
Motivation: It should not take 4 months to get a decision.