Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
2023
Motivation: Due to the format of the journal, a lot of the methodological details had to be put in the Supplementary Materials. Yet my impression was that the journal did not make the SM easily accessible for the reviewers. Two of the three reviewers mentioned that it took them some searching to find the SM, which contributed to some of their confusions in reading the manuscript. Other than that the review process was fast and the feedback were mostly very helpful.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
3.9 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
2021
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: Associate editor considered the topic interesting enough but recommended immediate rejection based on what they thought were (quite secondary) issues in the analyses. This is the type of feedback I expect to receive from reviewers and be given the chance to respond — not the type of feedback that should justify desk rejection, in my view.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: I did not understand the criticism.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: Nearly 3 weeks to get a desk rejection was a bit long, but during the COVID pandemic, it's understandable. The manuscript to evaluated by an associate editor who found that the scale of the study was far too small to support our generalisations.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation: Editor thought the study was well conducted and interesting but too specialized for the journal. They offered immediate transfer to their 'pay to play' open access journal. Based this experience and comments from colleagues, it seems like no one really knows what ecology letters is looking for. It doesn't seem to be novelty or scope.

"Unfortunately, the question, methods and scope are not sufficient to warrant publication in Ecology Letters. I would encourage the Authors to consider submitting their work to a journal with less pressure for space, such as, for example, Ecology & Evolution"
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2018
Motivation: The speed of the manuscript handling was exceptional. Both reviewers had important criticisms of the paper, but neither recommended rejecting the paper. However, R2 said that the results were "unsurprising" and this put up a red flag for the editor, who said Ecology Letters can only accept the most innovative and novel papers, and that "unsurprising" results were insufficient.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: The associated editor gave very constructive feedback and offered specific reasons of why he thought the manuscript was not fit for the journal.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: "The work is well conducted, but it provides another example of [...]. There is a huge literature on this. The work is clearly publishable, but it is not what Ecology Letters is looking to publish"
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: The editor deemed the manuscript wasn't a sufficient advance to qualify it into the top 10% of papers submitted so rejected very quickly (same day). Happy with that turn-around and justification.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: Quick decision.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: The answer came exactly three hours after submission
5.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
2016
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
5.4 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The manuscript was sent to 3 reviewers. All were generally positive, and the Editor decided on 'reject allowing resubmission'. We put a lot of work into revising it to satisfy what the reviewers wanted and sewnt the new version back in. It went to the same 3 reviewers; two were supportive while the third decided to move the goal posts. The Editor decided on that basis to reject. The tone of the editor was a bit condescending and superior which is unfortunalely not the first time I have encountered this attitude from that journal.