Reviews for "Ecological Indicators"

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
Ecological Indicators 11.0
weeks
19.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2021
Ecological Indicators 11.1
weeks
11.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Fast handling and review process.
Ecological Indicators 11.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: Only managed to find one reviewer, after all others failed to respond or declined to review.

Rejected it based on the advice of that one reviewer, despite the fact the reviewer clearly didn't understand how the methodology aligned with the aims of the research.
Much of the feedback was difficult to understand, the reviewer's English was poor and so comments made little sense. Majority of the feedback was unhelpful and suggested completely redesigning the data collection, despite the data being sourced from literature.

Would have been fine with the rejection and the feedback, but the poor communication of the reviewer made it difficult to trust their opinions. Given the poor quality of the review, I didn't expect the editor to just accept the reviewers advice so readily, perhaps the journal needs a better selection process for reviewers.
Ecological Indicators 6.0
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Ecological Indicators 8.0
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Ecological Indicators 6.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Ecological Indicators 12.0
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The review process was okay, but after acceptance something went wrong technically with the Elsevier system, and the last version of my article was lost in cyberspace. It took me many phonecalls (to India) and e-mails with the publisher's office to set it straight.
Ecological Indicators 26.0
weeks
26.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: In my experience it was a really fast process with excellent reviewers
Ecological Indicators 12.9
weeks
29.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Review reports were really good and they significantly improved the manuscript, but the review process was too long (a lot of time between submissions and editor decisions).
Ecological Indicators 6.5
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: Fast and professional work of editorial board. Accurate and helpful reviews.