Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
2023
Motivation: The editor initially sent the manuscript to two reviewers, one of which recommended publication with minor revisions and the other that recommended rejection. The editor then sent the manuscript to an additional reviewer, which extended the review process considerably. The third reviewer recommended rejection. As the recommendations for rejection were based primarily on reviewer biases (i.e. the manuscript addresses a contagious topic on pollution management), the editor was fair and recommended either an additional analysis and new submission or we submit elsewhere (and provided example journals). I would submit to Biological Conservation again, but I would be cautious of the timeline as the decision to only send the manuscript to two reviewers (which I could see through the tracking platform) resulted in a longer than needed review timeline.
18.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
1
Rejected
2021
Motivation: 3 reviews received - 2 were ok/positive (i.e. had critical feedback but gave a green light), 1 was fairly negative but did not recommend rejection. All the critiques could have been addressed within 1-2 weeks of editing and revisions. Strongly disagree with the editor's decision, seemed sloppy and poorly justified.
10.3 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The only reason I take out one point, is the initial waiting time for the first decision. I can understand the bulk of papers arriving at each journal's editorial office every day, but waiting for more than two months is a bit frustrating. But the whole process was very smooth and everything went fine.
15.5 weeks
15.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
2018
6.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
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.
5.4 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
2018
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: Complaining about ms being a case study of single species
19.5 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
0
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.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: The editor's decision was fast.
25.1 weeks
33.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
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.
7.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
14 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.
20.3 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
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.
n/a
n/a
8 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.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013