Journal info (provided by editor)

Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
Immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Two-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
2.6 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
2.6 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.5 / 5.0

Characteristics of peer review process

Average number of review rounds
1.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
n/a
Average number of review reports
2.5 reports
Quality of review reports
3.5 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 15.1 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
This was a strange case. Three reviewers: 1 strong rejection that defended their own past work rather than addressing anything in the manuscript itself; 1 intermediate review that found no real flaws with the manuscript, but suggested a stronger conservation focus would make it more suitable for the journal; and, 1 very detailed, critical and helpful review that strongly recommended publication in Conservation Letters after addressing the comments. The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.