Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
15.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
This was a strange case. Three reviewers: 1 strong rejection that defended their own past work rather than addressing anything in the manuscript itself; 1 intermediate review that found no real flaws with the manuscript, but suggested a stronger conservation focus would make it more suitable for the journal; and, 1 very detailed, critical and helpful review that strongly recommended publication in Conservation Letters after addressing the comments.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Two months was a good response time to have completed external review, especially since we submitted at the beginning of the holiday season in the US. While our paper was rejected the two reviews were thoughtful, specific, and thorough, and we were able to use those comments to substantially improve the paper before submitting it elsewhere. I felt that the recommendation to reject our paper was justified by the quality of the reviews provided.