Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.4 weeks
33.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2024
Motivation: I received three very constructive reviews in each round of the submission process. As a PhD student, I was very happy with the fast review process!
10.3 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2023
Motivation: Very swift and professional handling, good communication, critical reviews with focus on the substance.
12.9 weeks
25.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2022
Motivation: Fine handling of the manuscript and reviews from scholars who work on the same topic. Not the fastest review process.
14.7 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2021
17.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
2020
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
2020
Motivation: Really fast process and high-quality reviews. They do not strongly argue rejection, but this journal receives many manuscripts, and the editorial decision is reasonable. I recommend to submit here and I will do it again in the future.
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
2019
5.6 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Accepted
2020
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
2019
Motivation: Review process was short. Reviews were informative and well-argued.
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
2019
Motivation: The process took a bit longer than expected and was not easy to track, but the quality of the reviews made the wait worthwhile. Although the reviews did not recommend rejection per se, the paper was rejected. No reason was specified, but the range of suggested revisions in the reviews was probably too large for the journal to bother with "revise and resubmit" given its generally low acceptance rate. Under the circumstances, the decision seemed fair.
15.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
2017
Motivation: Very competitive journal, but relatively fast process with grounded reviews
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Rejected
2018
Motivation: We failed to communicate our results well in this paper, and received rather confusing reports from the reviewers. That's not going to cut it with a journal like ESR.
9.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
5
Accepted
2017
Motivation: Very fast review process of about 2 months for each revision round. Nevertheless, after conditional acceptance 2 new reviewers assigned, who came up with some additional thoughts
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
2015
23.4 weeks
23.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
2014
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Rejected
2016
9.0 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
5
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Unlike our previous experience, the review process was swift, and we had (I believe) 7 different reviewers who were generally very positive and very constructive. I believe the paper did end up being much better due to the review process.
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
2016
Motivation: Very fast review procedure
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
2015
16.6 weeks
41.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Excellent and rather fast reviews
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2014
30.3 weeks
71.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
0
Accepted
2014
Motivation: It took more than 40 weeks to get comments on the revision (plus 30 weeks for an initial decision).
44.9 weeks
64.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The reviewer reports were quite different in tone and in the revisions that were requested. Initial decision took way too long.
38.9 weeks
38.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
2014
Motivation: The editors took 9 months to come to the first decision and I understand that our paper wasn't the only one that took such a long time.
26.0 weeks
44.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2014
25.9 weeks
25.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
2013
49.1 weeks
49.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
2014
Motivation: The content of the reviews was adequate, but our contribution took nearly one year to review.
35.6 weeks
45.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The first round was lengthy but the subsequent rounds were fast and efficient.
39.6 weeks
39.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
2014
Motivation: Too lengthy review period
45.7 weeks
45.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Rejected
2014
Motivation: It really took a bit long (almost a year) to get just one reviewer. The review was detailed, though.
52.1 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
2010
Motivation: I got several courtesy mails because the review process took so long.
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2010
19.5 weeks
49.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Rejected
2012