Reviews for "Climatic Change"

Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome	Year
n/a	n/a	40.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2019
13.6 weeks	13.6 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Rejected	2019
Motivation: One of the referees was constructive, but the other was not. I think we could answer to the questions&comments of this critical reviewer, however the editors didn't offered an opportunity for revision.
35.1 weeks	43.4 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Accepted	2019
Motivation: Actually, we initially submitted this as a comment to an article previously published in the same journal, so there was a review prior to the first review shown here. We were generally pleased with the reviewers' comments and with higher level editors responsiveness. However, the reviews and the editorial handling of the reviews took too long. We had to repeatedly ask for updates.
16.0 weeks	23.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2017
Motivation: The first round of review was a bit slow because there was a mix-up in the system and the manuscript was wrongly marked as being in pre-production for the first few weeks after initial submission. This was rectified after upon contacting the editor after 4 weeks had elapsed. From that point on, the rest of the process was satisfactory and hitch-free.
n/a	n/a	2.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2017
Motivation: Transparent, fast and comprehensible decision. Would definitely submit there again.
34.7 weeks	69.4 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	1 (bad)	Accepted	2013
Motivation: The review required too much time!
25.7 weeks	38.7 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2015
Motivation: Fairly good review process, with acceptable time between submission and acceptance.
n/a	n/a	41.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2015
21.9 weeks	21.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Rejected	2012
16.4 weeks	16.4 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	3 (good)	Rejected	2012