Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
20.9 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Considering this was a very straight forward phylogeographic study, it did not require such a long initial time in review. Neither reviewer seemed to be very well informed about basic population genetic concepts. In particular, the lengthy response necessary for the second reviewer was essentially an explanation of simple concepts (isolation by distance, interpretation of structure plots etc). Needless to say this type of review is a waste of time for authors and not a word was changed in the paper.
10.9 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Considering that the paper was a very simple study, the review process was far too long. The reviews did not improve the paper in this case and there was quite a lot of messing around (e.g. we were asked why we hadn't sent back the corrected proofs when we had actually never received these and also we hadn't even heard back whether our final changes/revision were okay). We were asked right at the end to add a few lines in the materials and methods - (post review - so I'm not sure where this came from) but in the end these lines were not included at all.