Review this journal

Conservation Letters

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 2 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases Click to compare
Duration first review round 2.6 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 2.6 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process Click to compare
Average number of review reports 2.5 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.5 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments n/a compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.5 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review Show all reviews

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

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.

Show all »

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Conservation Letters has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Open access status
Manuscript handling fee?
Kind of complaint procedure
Two-year impact factor
Five-year impact factor

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.