Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
20.0 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
2021
Motivation: Professional handling, but a bit slow. This is understandable though given covid related issues.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2020
14.4 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: After a initial review the paper was a reject and resubmit. I took the reviews seriously and resubmitted in about 6 weeks. The reviews were gery helpful.
8.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The reviews were brief (~1 paragraph) and unhelpful, but the associate editor gave extensive comments that were helpful and appreciated, I think because s/he saw the reviews as insufficient. 3 months of the total time was my tardiness in getting revisions back. Positive experience overall.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2016
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
7.1 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Drawn back
2017
Motivation: I found the reviewer and editor's to be very insightful and constructive. As such they greatly improved the quality of the MS. More in they were returned in a prompt manner. The MS was ultimately referred to Ecosphere.
8.4 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
39.1 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The paper was sent out for review 2 times and then rejected. The second round of reviews were very favorable (they were easy to address for another journal), but it was rejected for a reason that was unclear (after about 1.5 years of review)
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2011
Motivation: Although the ms was rejected, the reviewers were fair and prompt in their responses. They offered a great deal of useful feedback which helped us revise and create a much better manuscript, which was accepted at the next journal we submitted to.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
2013
Motivation: One reviewer was exceedingly dismissive and elitist in their commentary. The ms was largely criticized for its brevity. It was specifically made brief to fit into the 'Report' format that Ecology is advertising. In the end, I think they were right to reject it. I have no hard feelings. But it was a long process and the reviews were so dismissive it should have been short.
6.5 weeks
6.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Rejected
2013