Reviews for "Ecology"

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 14.4
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
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.
Ecology 8.9
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
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.
Ecology 11.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Ecology n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Ecology 7.1
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
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.
Ecology 8.4
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Ecology n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Ecology 39.1
weeks
60.8
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
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)
Ecology 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
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.
Ecology 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
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.
Ecology 6.5
weeks
6.5
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Rejected 2013