Reviews for "The EMBO Journal"

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
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
Motivation: Pros: fast first editorial decision. Cons: the editors were not able to perceive the importance of the work
The EMBO Journal 5.7
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: The editor was quick to judge, read and evaluate the content, and the paper was made better by the referee and editor's suggestions.
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: The ms was immediately rejected however I was really impressed that it took the editors only one day and the reasons for rejection were explained. Definitely, the editor had read the paper.
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Fast process, and reasons for rejection were explained. It was evident that the editor had read the paper.
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Poor initial assessment. The argumentation for rejection was scientifically incorrect (claiming that the structures we report are known, which is not true).
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Fast and efficient process. A few lines from the Editor showing that the paper was at least quickly read.
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Very fast process. The justification that no new molecular process was identified, seems acceptable, for publication in this journal.
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
The EMBO Journal n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013