Reviews for "Ecography"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Ecography n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Ecography 26.9
weeks
26.9
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Six months under review without any in-between note! The reviews were extremely weak. We could not basically learn anything useful from the reviews to improve the manuscript. The reviews were in the lines: May be your global study was biased? Why did not you include the data of the home country of the reviewer in your global data set?
Ecography n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Ecography n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Ecography 13.1
weeks
21.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Our experience from first submission through both sets of revisions was a very positive one. Both referees clearly spent considerable time on the reviews, and provided reports of high quality and detail that helped us greatly in reworking certain sections of the paper. The handling time was quite lengthy, but this was not surprising given the complexity of the manuscript, and the editorial team did a fine job in handling the paper and responding to queries in a timely fashion.
Ecography n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Ecography n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Ecography n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2012
Ecography 11.1
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The review process was long, but reviewers did a great job checking every part of the manuscript and appendices. Suggestions were good but required a lot of new work to be done.
Ecography 14.9
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The review was handled badly because I had to make multiple revisions, yet on every review the decision was 'minor revisions'. Even after very positive reviews and a 'minor revision' decision the manuscript was sent out to additional (new) reviewers. The changes I was asked to make after each review by the editor could have been made on the first round of review if they had all been brought up then. This led to much frustration and took up more time than necessary.
Ecography n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Motivation: Not well motivated why the manuscript was not sent out on review.