That sounds frustrating! Having to satisfy so many peer reviewers, when it sounds like the original four reviews were not properly considered by Translational Psychiatry. Not only does this waste your time, but it also wastes the reviewers' time, potentially trading off with a more productive allocation of reviewer efforts.
I hadn't heard of the "Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium". I like the concept. It's a shame whenever a thoughtful review goes to waste & review transfer provides big efficiency gains for all stakeholders. Hopefully, in the future, we can move to a system of post-publication peer review where all reviews can be public immediately.
my particular study took 222 days
From the plot it looks like quite a few unlikely papers languish at Translational Psychiatry for over 200 days. It will be interesting to see whether the published paper reports the dates correctly. Journals have been known to reset the clock and use a resubmission date as the original submission date to make their delays look smaller.
Regarding plotting publishing delays, see also Stephen Royle's recent post on creating ridgeline plots of publishing delays over time (code here). His analysis is in R & a bit more lightweight.
I didn't think about the reviewer's time, but you definitely have a point! (I forgot you scale wasted time with the number of people involved, which is really how it should be done!) I have heard of the idea of post-publication peer review in your talk on the future of publishing and really like the idea! Science is dynamic. A study being published doesn't equate the end of communication of that idea.
I will see what TranslPsych posts as receival date.
I know there's a really cool name for these ridgeline plots but can't quite recall what it is at the moment. R is good. I can work with R. :P
Joyplot. I even have a Twitter Moment about these plots.
However, the term joyplot has fallen out of favor with some bioinformaticians since it derives from an album cover which derives from a band name which derives from a novella that uses the term "Joy Division" for a concept that derives from the Holocaust.
Oh dear. I guess I'll stick with ridgeline then!
P.S. It sounds like Translational Psychiatry didn't really abide by the spirit of the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium by requesting three additional reviews (as if it didn't come with any preexisting reviews).
At first, I thought perhaps there's a bug while reviews were being transferred and the editor didn't get the old reviewers' information? But then again they could have asked BiolPsych. I made it quite clear in the 25-page cover letter...