Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
Constructive and fair reviews without any significant delay during the process.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
I appreciate every paper is different, and editors are extremely busy, but in this case the editor rejected the ms because they deemd it not significant enough of a contribution to the field. I respect that decsion, althought I would of course argue the point. However, given the editor's opinion, sending it out for revision and the long (for the field) decsion process seems like a waste of everyone's time. It was certainly frustrating. The reviewers comments will be useful in revising the manuscript, but not 4 months useful. This journal also requires specific formatting which contributes to further wasted time. I hope they can modernise a bit to make it a bit less frustrating for potential authors in the future, or at least display publication/ decsion statistics similar to the journal of Animal Behaviour.
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
My manuscript was sent to two reviewers. One reviewer failed to respond and the editor didn't find a new reviewer until after I followed up (once the reviewer was over 40 days late). The new review was finished promptly and the editor was apologetic. One reviewer was positive and the second more critical. I received very few reviewer comments, which focused on experimental methods and minor points of clarification. The associate editor seemed more negative than either reviewer and recommended reject. We were disappointed that we didn't get an opportunity to resubmit a revised version.
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
After my manuscript was sent to two reviewers (one with very positive comments and one more critical), the editor decided to reject the manuscript. Although some points raised by one of the reviewer and the handling editor were fair, I regret that there was no possibility to respond to these comments and resubmit a revised version... Otherwise, the delay of the review process was ok and the handling editor choice of reviewers was relevant (both reviewers signed their review, which is highly appreciable as an author).
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Really good reviews that will improve approach if revision for another journal
4.1 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2012
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015