Reviews for "Ecology Letters"

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
Ecology Letters 6.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
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.
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 4.0
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.
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 3.0
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"
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 0.0
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.
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Quick decision.
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: The answer came exactly three hours after submission
Ecology Letters 5.7
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2012
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Ecology Letters n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Ecology Letters 5.4
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
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.