Reviews for "Environmental Science and Technology"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2022
Motivation: We got very interesting comments from reviewers.
5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: Despite our manuscript going to review straight after submitting, the paper was rejected. We received three fantastic and encouraging reviews, of which highlighted major text changes but did not require new analyses or state any methodological flaws. The reviews do not reflect the decision of reject, especially because the rejection was based on criteria which should have been assessed prior to sending to external review. We contested the decision but subject editor refused to reconsider, despite the positive reviews.
5.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
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.
9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The reviews were generally very helpful and resulted in improvements to the manuscript.
n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
14.4
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
10.4
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
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.
2.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013