Reviews for "Environmental Modelling and Software"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
47.7 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
2015
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Rejected
2017
Motivation: The journal is fast, and the editors are very responsible, however, the quality of reviewer's comments are low and biased. One reviewer clearly neither has a good understanding of the methodology nor carefully read the manuscript, given 1) give comments that are theoretically incorrect on the model; 2) point out a limitation that has already been properly dealt with as a major problem. In conclusion, as a top-tier journal, the experience is really disappointing.
35.7 weeks
35.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
2017
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was excellent, increasing the manuscript quality a lot. However the overall review process was too long.
n/a
n/a
44 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: Although the paper presented a systemic modelling work with R-programmed Morris sensitivity analysis that could be useful for other models, the decision was "your paper is a bit too narrowly focused and hence doesn't fit within the scope of the journal".
Such a decision came after 1.5 months, which is quite long given that no further constructive comment was provided.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
54 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation: The first internal review was a bit long (almost 2 months) given the output (rejection without external review). However, elements were provided in order to improve the paper quality.
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
4
Accepted
2011
25.1 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
2013
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
2012