Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: The editor consulted another editor and they both decided that the scope was too narrow for this journal. Our study included multiple countries, and trophic interactions across multiple plant and animal species in agricultural systems so we were a bit surprised by the result. Apparently you need to study a single mammal species in one system for it to be broad enough in scope. My impression is that the journal prioirtizes novelty and charismatic taxa even though it isn't explicitly stated. They offered to transfer the paper to their new 'pay to play' open access journal "Conservation Science and Practice". We couldn't afford the publication fee so we weren't able to publish with them.

The response we got was positive though and overall an ok experience. I wish it hadn't have taken almost 3 weeks to get desk rejected though.



n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: I felt the editor raised important points in rejecting the manuscript, even if I did not agree with them entirely. I used many of the comments to improve the manuscript, which helped get it published elsewhere. I appreciated that the editor shared my manuscript with a colleague to gain additional advice before making a decision.