PloS ONE.
(Public Library of Science)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 75 days (SD = 17) |
| Review length | 776 words (SD = 375) |
| Review quality | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Overall quality | 3.6 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Would submit again | 4.4 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Journal recommendation | 4.4 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
(based on 5 reports including 9 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 776 words (SD = 375) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.9 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Helpfulness | 3.9 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Fairness | 3.6 / 5 (SD = 1.1) |
| Overall quality | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 565 words (SD = 147) |
| Decision | Revise&Resubmit (modal) |
| Plausibility | 4.4 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.1) |
| Fairness | 4.3 / 5 (SD = 1.3) |
| Overall quality | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 1.6) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 27 days (SD = 25) |
(based on 2 reports including 2 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 69 words (SD = 0) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Consistency | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | n/a |
| Decision | Accept (modal) |
| Plausibility | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
Although the reviewers were generally positive, the editor 'noted significant issues related to the science of the paper' suggesting that large fundamental changes would have to be made - even though all reviewers had rated the methodology as thorough and the pointed the editor brought up were relatively minor. The final decision was a confusing 'open rejection', whatever that may mean (I'm guessing it's like major revision).
Although the reviewers were generally positive, the editor 'noted significant issues related to the science of the paper' suggesting that large fundamental changes would have to be made - even though all reviewers had rated the methodology as thorough and the pointed the editor brought up were relatively minor. The final decision was a confusing 'open rejection', whatever that may mean (I'm guessing it's like major revision).
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 4 / 5
Initially, there was some confusion as PLOS cites a relatively short turnaround time for initial review (~4 weeks). After waiting nearly 8, we contacted PLOS seeking an update, and were put in contact with the AE, who was great at getting us up to speed (a reviewer declined to review after accepting the task, so a replacement was required).
We were impressed with the technical feedback we received, as it was of higher scientific quality than a non-open source Journal provided. Overall reviews were understandable and concerns were paired with recommendations.
Initially, there was some confusion as PLOS cites a relatively short turnaround time for initial review (~4 weeks). After waiting nearly 8, we contacted PLOS seeking an update, and were put in contact with the AE, who was great at getting us up to speed (a reviewer declined to review after accepting the task, so a replacement was required).
We were impressed with the technical feedback we received, as it was of higher scientific quality than a non-open source Journal provided. Overall reviews were understandable and concerns were paired with recommendations.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion