Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
0.6 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
0.9 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
4.0 / 5.0 (difficult)
Average number of review reports
3.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
4.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
4.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 2.4 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
Overall, the peer review helped to improve the manuscript, although mainly through the addition of pre-planned experiments rather than the immediate requests made by some of the reviewers. Additionally, while the editorial staff was quick in getting back to our queries, an initial deadline of 10 days for the first revision seemed very unreasonable given that they also requested further experiments which needed the cultivation of new specimens for at least 14 days. The set-out deadlines seemed even more unreasonable as the third (and last) review report has been forwarded two days after the start of the original revision process.