Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
I submitted my paper and waited more than 20 weeks (Average is 9 weeks). They said that they received the review from a reviewer, and need to wait two more. They sent to others reviewers again. There is no thing happen.
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Rejection was based on one reviewer (that seemed a bit short to me). However, the comments of the reviewer were interesting and helped us improved the paper.
The editor also suggested another journal in which to submit after corrections (that was a good idea even though I already sumbitted to that journal and had a very bad experience).
The editor also suggested another journal in which to submit after corrections (that was a good idea even though I already sumbitted to that journal and had a very bad experience).
6.4 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
I had a very positive experience with Ecological Modelling. The reviews were very thorough, constructive, and received quickly. The editor seemed fair and responsive. It was <1 week from the time the paper was accepted until a fully typeset version was online. Overall- highly recommended!
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
Ecological Modelling was the fastest journal from submission to publication that I've ever experienced.
15.2 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
I think the reviewers did a very good job at reviewing the paper, which has improved substantially before publication. The reviewing process took a relatively long time, but it was overall satisfactory.