Reviews for "Functional Ecology"

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 Year
Functional Ecology 10.6
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: One of the reviewers really liked the manuscript while the second reviewer showed very biased opinions on the theory behind out study case. The comments were useful and will help improving the manuscript, but we wished there would have been a third reviewer. Also, the whole review process got delayed from the expected 50 days announced in the journal's website to 75 days.
Functional Ecology n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Functional Ecology 7.7
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Review process was performed within a reasonable timeframe and reviewer comments were useful to improve the manuscript
Functional Ecology 7.6
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The process was very smooth. Although one review was very negative and of low quality (in the authors' opinion), the associate editor sided with the other review that was much more positive. The manuscript was sent to review and decisions were taken in a timely manner.
Functional Ecology 8.7
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: We submitted a relatively short and simple paper. The first round of review took 2 months. Both reviewers said to accept the paper with very minor changes. However, the editor did not agree and decided to reject the manuscript with invited resubmission. We made all suggested changes and resubmitted the manuscript. The 2nd round of review took 3 months. Both of the original reviewers said they were satisfied. However, a 3rd reviewer did not agree with the premise of the paper, although I do not believe he/she entirely understood the message. Thus the editor said he/she could not accept the manuscript given an additional reviewer gave a negative report. Thus the manuscript was refused with no possible resubmission. The process took 6 months, which was all time entirely wasted. Several emails to the editorial team during the review process went un-answered. Despite the fact that both original reviewers suggested to accept the paper the editor refused it. The most bothersome part is that we were given an invited resubmission, however the editor clearly did not like the paper and should have made this decision right away instead of wasting so much time.
Functional Ecology 18.6
weeks
26.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Functional Ecology n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Functional Ecology 9.6
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Functional Ecology n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Functional Ecology 7.4
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The manuscript was returned to us for a moderate amount of revision, and unlike our experience with several other journals he accepted it without subjecting the revised version to multiple rounds of further review. We have consistently had good experiences with this journal; although they don't always accept our work (well, their acceptance rate is now <15%), they are fast and constructive, and whenever they do return our work to be revised they will usually accept the revised version without delaying it with further unnecessary rounds of re-review. Our labgroup is very satisfied with this journal.