Reviews for "Biological Conservation"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Biological Conservation 15.5
weeks
15.5
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2018
Biological Conservation 6.3
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: My experience with this journal is exactly how I would expect a paper to be handled. The first decision was in a reasonable time, I got three quality reviews that improved the clarity of the manuscript, and the turn around to acceptance was also very quick.
Biological Conservation 5.4
weeks
22.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2018
Biological Conservation n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Complaining about ms being a case study of single species
Biological Conservation 19.5
weeks
43.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The process was very slow, the communication from editors and even online was poor, and the editorial leadership and guidance absent. Overall a very disappointing experience.
Biological Conservation n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: The editor's decision was fast.
Biological Conservation 25.1
weeks
33.8
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: It seemed that there was one negative peer reviewer who had misunderstood some of the study design, of the 3 reviewers the only one to do so, and there were a number of suggestions that did not seem relevant to the authors.
Biological Conservation 7.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Biological Conservation n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Two weeks was a long time to wait for a reject without review decision.
Biological Conservation 20.3
weeks
20.3
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: My criticism was that it took the journal nearly half a year to get two reviewers to write an extremely short and unconstructive review. Added to that, one of the reviewers seemed incompetent with regard to the topic of the paper due to the nature of the comments received.
Biological Conservation n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected by a single editor with a very evasive rejection motive, 4 words: "more suitable for a specialized journal". Not even a word about what kind of "specialized journal" the editor is referring to.
Biological Conservation n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013