Reviews for "Environmental Science and Technology"
| 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 |
| Environmental Science and Technology | 5.0 weeks |
9.0 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Standard review times, mostly helpful comments, four reviews was a lot to deal with but OK, in-house copy editors are easy to deal with. | |||||||
| Environmental Science and Technology | 9.3 weeks |
9.3 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: The reviews were generally very helpful and resulted in improvements to the manuscript. | |||||||
| Environmental Science and Technology | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Environmental Science and Technology | 14.4 weeks |
26.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Environmental Science and Technology | 10.4 weeks |
10.4 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: In the first submission (not reported here) the first editor handled the manuscript made his/her decision to reject our paper trusting only on one of the 3 reviewers' comments. I replied to the editor that her/his way to handle the review process was not the rigth way (I'm editor too) and I explained why he/she could not trust just on the comment of one reviewer who did not support his/her remarks with scentific literature references. Finally, the editorial staff made the decision to change handling reviewer and riconsider our manuscript for possible publication. This time the paper was sent to 4 new reviewers and accepted for publication after major revisions. | |||||||
| Environmental Science and Technology | 2.0 weeks |
3.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
@scirev