Reviews for "Environmental Science and Technology"

Review this journal Show journal page
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 5.4
weeks		 5.4
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected
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.
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