Latest review
First review round: 34.4 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad).
Outcome: Accepted.
Motivation:
For what should have been a fairly simple and straightforward review process, we were shocked by the amount of reminders we had to send to keep our manuscript moving forward. In the end, our single reviewer focused on a secondary aspect of our study almost entirely and requested that this aspect be promoted as the primary focus of the work, despite significant methodological decisions (explained clearly in the manuscript) that would make this dishonest. The reviewer did not return to read our response and the editor ultimately decided to publish the paper without further review. In the time that our manuscript was processing, the editorial office had significant turnover that made communication with the journal nearly impossible. Without constant prompting, I am unsure if this manuscript would have ever received any attention at all. Combined with the poor relevance of the review, I am strongly discouraged from submitting to Conservation Genetics again.
