The speed was quite fast, it was firstly submitted to Genetics, and then transferred to G3-Genes Genomes Genetics. Major revision was required in less than a month (after submission). Both reviewers had three questions, and they were all grammatical or wrong words, and the article was directly accepted after revision.

(14) Thank | 遥花姬

Our paper had 6 rounds of review. The Associate Editor wrote detailed comments and contributed more than the two reviewers. In the first round, the AE criticized the format. The first draft was in Nature’s format, but G3 (and also Genetics) says clearly on their website that they accept any format for the initial submission! In addition, the second reviewer made some comment that is a violation of the ethics of peer review. After we submitted our first revision, the AE did not send it to any reviewers but did not reject it either. Then the paper went higher up, to the Senior Section Editor, who requested two rounds of revision. But the SSE didn’t really understand our paper but give it to the AE. We were unhappy but still had to revise and resubmit. That round the SSE, AE, and reviewers were all satisfied. The AE also privately send me the manuscript through Dropbox, mainly some revisions on the language. I think this is the AE’s private revision request. 2016.8.19 submitted, 2017.1 accepted, published in March. Wiegel at the Max Planck Institute recommended our paper on Tweeter, and our paper had the top download of that month at G3. “Reproduction and In-Depth Evaluation of Genome-Wide Association Studies and Genome-Wide Meta-analyses Using Summary Statistics”

(0) Thank | chen.guobo@foxmail.com

How are you now? How long is the review time?

(0) Thank | 凯利布鲁克

The text "2 citations 5 years after published" is already in English. It means that a particular piece of work has received two citations or references in other publications or academic papers five years after it was originally published.

(0) Thank | xiaoguanghuan

Research Focus: Biology sharing experience: I have been assigned to an editor for over half a month, and the status is still Assigned

(0) Thank | 狮吼碧螺

It might happen

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Keywords should be avoided in the title. Most journals have this recommendation

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

Can the key words be extracted from the title?

(0) Thank | 深渊兴业

Will the reviewers be able to determine the novelty of my research based on the keywords I provide?

(0) Thank | Oswald Edie

is very fast.Probably because of the one-year GSE torture.20170626 I didn't plan to select for G3. I wanted to try to lose it directly. The results of Genetics were rejected two days later because of the narrow scope of the study and not suitable for public reading.If you want to rotate the G3, you will switch to G3.20170802 Return to the first round of reconsider posting (reconsider schedule revision), the deputy editor of the distribution does not have many opinions, just think that there are too many pictures, and there are many opinions on the two reviewers.20171015 Deputy revision minor revision, the reviewer has only one small problem.20171031 Early publication.Long-Term Impact of Optimum Contribution Selection Strategies on Local Livestock Breeds with Historical Introgression at the Example of German Angler Cattle

(0) Thank | wangyu09127@gmail.com

Very fast. Probably because I had gone through a year of torment in GSE before. I wasn't planning on submitting to G3 at first, planned to directly submit to Genetics to try, but Genetics rejected me two days later, citing that my study scope was too narrow for general readers. Asked if I wanted to transfer to G3, so I transferred to G3. Returned first round of review comments on 20170802 (reconsider pending revision). The assigned associate editor did not have many opinions, just thought there were too many figures, the opinions of the two reviewers were numerous. Vice Editor returned comments on 20171015 (accept pending minor revision), only one small issue from the reviewers. Early publication on 20171031. long-term impact of optimum contribution selection strategies on local livestock breeds with historical introgression at the example of german angler cattle

(0) Thank | 晨风一凡

Review speed: 2.0 | Submission hit rate: 50.0
Experience sharing: The review speed is quite fast. Submitted on June 18, 2017, received minor revisions on August 12, 2017. Accepted 2 days after completing revisions, and early online 7 days later. The page fee is a bit expensive

(0) Thank | 无妄常青

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission success rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: This journal is quite fast in reviewing new research content. Submitted on 2016-08-01, received minor revisions feedback on 2016-08-24, revised on 2016-08-25, accepted on 2016-08-27, and published online on 2016-09-07

(0) Thank | 法慧之槐

Review speed: 12.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 25.0
Experience sharing: Went through 6 rounds of reviews. The associate editor provided detailed comments, contributing more than two reviewers. Reviewer 1 criticized formatting issues. The initial draft was in Nature format, but as stated clearly on the G3 (including genetics) website, the first submission can be in any format! Additionally, Reviewer 2 mentioned something that goes against the ethics of peer review. After revising based on Reviewer 1's comments, the associate editor did not send it out for another round of review or reject it. The comments were escalated to the senior section editor. The SSE requested revisions for two rounds. However, the SSE did not fully grasp the issues and did not inform the AE. After a month of frustration, revisions were made and resubmitted. Everyone involved, including the SSE, AE, and reviewers, were satisfied with the revisions. The AE privately sent the revised manuscript via Dropbox, mainly focusing on text revisions. These were considered as private modification requests. Submitted on August 19, 2016, accepted in January 2017, and published in March. Max Wiegel from MAPI recommended our article on Twitter, resulting in our article being the top download of G3 for that month. Reproduction and detailed evaluation of genome-wide association studies and genome-wide meta-analyses using summary statistics

(0) Thank | 珉林怡瑶

Review speed: 3.0 Experience sharing: Submitted for 4 months and eventually rejected. Throughout the process, I was constantly asked if there was a review (4 times in total). Finally, a somewhat reluctant response was received stating that they were still looking for reviewers. After dragging on, only one reviewer was found who gave very basic feedback, leading to rejection. I don't even want to comment on the objectivity of the evaluation. One reviewer giving feedback, wasting so much of my time and still having the audacity to brush me off. It's no wonder it's a new magazine. I do not recommend submitting to this magazine. Hopefully others can learn from this and not make the mistake of submitting to this pitiful magazine

(0) Thank | 乌龙采亦

After the submission is confirmed, will the author receive an email? My submission status online shows "under review," but the authors have not received any emails

(0) Thank | 天罡海瑶

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 50.0
Experience sharing: Receive review comments within a month, and accept revisions within 3 days

(0) Thank | 神古凝夏

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 75.0 Experience sharing: Submitted to genetics, received reviewer comments in one month, suggested minor revisions and resubmitted to G3, accepted within 5 days after revision

(0) Thank | 天神院兴言

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 50.0
Experience Sharing: Submitted a Genomes article, recommended to G3, reviewed within one month, minor revisions, accepted within one week. Very fast!

(0) Thank | 努力啊大雨柏