Reviews for "Biology Letters"

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
Biology Letters 5.9
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Biology Letters n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Biology Letters 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer clearly hadn't read/understood the paper, other reviewer gave good comments.
Biology Letters 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The duration was really long and one of the two reviews was batched (the other review was correct). I would like to say that I have no problem with being rejected (rejection is the rule in Academia), but I want to denounce the low quality of this journal (or for being fair, my bad experience with this journal.
Biology Letters 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Biology Letters 5.0
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The Editor's letter appeared justified but was simply a summary of the Reviewer's comment, which were unfortunately partly technically wrong (especially for critical aspects that led to the rejection). This is too often the case in the peer-review process that a fully justified response (with several references backing up the author argument) to the Reviewers comments is simply judged "not convincing" or "not correct" by the annonymous Reviewer (who does not have to back up his/her statement by any means). Expert Editor are needed to have an independent psoition over the paper.
Biology Letters 4.3
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent, very speed process; high quality revisions