Reviews for "Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
14.1
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2020
16.6
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
34.1
weeks
34.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
18.7
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The reasons for rejection were a combination of misgivings about how our analysis had been carried out and a topic that was too restricted in its geographic relevance to be of wide interest.

There were a few comments that we feel betray some unfamiliarity with the type of analysis we carried out but other than this the feedback was comprehensive and will be useful when we resubmit to another journal. On this basis while the process took a long time, we feel the editorial staff took care in sourcing reviewers that will ultimately improve our article.
n/a n/a 52.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2012
Motivation: After one month and a half since the submission, the paper was rejected with no external review. Besides 'copied-and-pasted' default statements, the only original information provided by the editor in the decision letter was that the content of the paper was of local importance only.