The EMBO Journal in numbers — 2008
The general flow and handling of manuscripts is essentially as described in the 2005 editorial (Rørth, 2005). Efficient processing of submissions is ensured by close cooperation of professional full-time editors with an academic Advisory Editorial Board (AEB) and an Executive Editor. Each manuscript undergoes careful assessment at the editorial level as soon as possible after submission, being read in full by one of the editors and, following scrutiny of the relevant background literature, discussed among the whole editorial team. Resulting initial decision may either lead to immediate proceeding with in-depth external review, to editorial rejection (with reasons being carefully explained in the decision letters to the authors), or to further consultations with one or more appropriate experts on the Advisory Editorial Board. During peak submission times, an additional prescreening may be performed by the Executive Editor, to avoid unacceptable delays in processing submissions and to ensure the efficiency and quality of the editorial assessments. Editors take decisions on peer-reviewed manuscripts usually based on the comments and evaluations of three external reviewers (depending on the desired combination of respective expertises), as well as additional input e.g. from Advisory Editorial Board members or the Executive Editor where required. Revised manuscripts are usually only invited for studies that receive substantial support already in their initial form, and that may therefore only require substantiation, but not major conceptual extensions during the revision period. Our default policy is therefore to allow for only one round of major revision (up to 90 days). Other studies of wider interest that would however require extensions that would be beyond the scope of regular revisions and/or may have uncertain outcome, may be rejected with the possibility of an eventual resubmissions pending that certain preconditions may be fulfilled - this will be explicitly stated where applicable. Resubmissions in the absence of such an explicit invitation on the other hand are not normally considered under these policies and will mostly be treated similar to manuscript appeals, which are closely evaluated on all editorial levels necessary (editorial team, Executive Editor, Advisory Editorial Board) but only in a certain number of cases are sent to external referees (see below).
| Total submissions |
2918 |
| Total rejected before review |
76% |
| Executive Editor Prescreen |
16% |
| Rejected by Editorial Team |
48% |
| Rejected by Editorial Board |
12% |
| Sent for external peer review |
24% |
| Success rate in peer review |
41% |
| Total acceptance rate |
10% |
This overall acceptance rate may appear very low, but reflects the fact that many submissions are not in agreement with the expectations and standards of the Journal. For more information, please also see the accompanying document (fate of rejected manuscripts), which shows that the vast majority of studies rejected at The EMBO Journal are eventually published in journals of lower impact and/or more specialized interest.
| from submission to initial decision |
4d |
| from submission to decision post review |
31d |
| Average duration of revision |
67d |
| Additional round of revision granted |
42% |
| Average duration of extra revision |
35d |
| Appeals on editorial rejection |
129 (6%) |
| reconsidered via AEB or peer review |
40 (31%) |
| successful |
5 (3.9%) |
| Appeals on post-review rejection |
53 (13%) |
| reconsidered via AEB or referees |
11 (21%) |
| successful |
4 (7.5%) |
