G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics

Profile - Forum · Metrics · Reviews

There were 6 rounds of trial. The associate editor wrote detailed comments and contributed more than two reviewers. The first trial ae criticized the format problem. The first draft is in nature format, but the g3 (including genetics) webpage says very clearly that any format is accepted for the first draft! In addition, the second reviewer said something that violated the review ethics. After the first trial was repaired, ae did not deliver and refused. The comments went to the senior section editor at the upper level. sse let adjust for two rounds. But sse hasn't figured it out and won't give it to ae. Change and send again after a month of sulking. That round of sse, ae, and reviewers were all satisfied. ae gave me the manuscript via dropbox in private, mainly to modify the text. Count his private modification request. It was voted on August 19, 2016, accepted on January 2017, and published in March. Mapp’s wiegel recommended on tweet, and our article was the first download of the month on g3. reproduction and in-depth evaluation of genome-wide association studies and genome-wide meta-analyses using summary statistics

very fast. Probably because of the torture of gse for a year before. 20170626 I didn't plan to vote for g3. I planned to throw genetics and try it. But two days later, genetics rejected me because the research scope is narrow and not suitable for public reading. Ask if you want the rotor to publish g3, then go to g3. 20170802 returned to the first round of reviewing comments (reconsider pending revision), the assigned deputy editor did not have many comments, but felt that there were too many pictures, and the two reviewers had a lot of comments. 20171015 Associate editor returns comments (accept pending minor revision), the reviewer has only one minor issue. 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

The speed is quite fast. I started to submit genetics and transferred to g3. It took less than a month to make minor revisions. Both reviewers had only 3 questions, and they were all grammatical or wrong words. They were accepted directly after revision.

Overall, the G3 review process was fast and fair. Our manuscript was properly evaluated on the work submitted both both the reviewers and editor.

Overall, very happy with quality of reviews and review process. However, the journal's office policy/submission system can be improved. Currently, G3 has two options for revise and resubmit. The first allows 30 days to revise and does not require entering metadata for the article again. The second allows 90 days to revise but requires the author to manually re-enter all of the metadata required for a new submission.