Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
The editor noted that the manuscript was more geared toward an experimental technique rather than coral reefs themselves and, therefore, would be more suitable elsewhere.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
Quick decision.
3.6 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The process was quite fast.
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
The duration of the review process is reasonable.
Reviewers' comments are comprehensive, with constructive suggestions.
Reviewers' comments are comprehensive, with constructive suggestions.
25.6 weeks
31.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The first round of review took far too long.
However, reviewers gave really constructive comments, which helped to improve the manuscript a lot.
However, reviewers gave really constructive comments, which helped to improve the manuscript a lot.
7.6 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
The editor and reviewer argued that if the revisions did clarified several issues and resulted in a much clearer manuscript, however, they did had serious concerns regarding the novelty of this study relative to the previous one by two of the authors ".
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.