Reviews for "Geophysical Research Letters"

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
Geophysical Research Letters 5.6
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Geophysical Research Letters 9.3
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: Exceptionally slow review process based on only 1-2 reviewers.
Geophysical Research Letters 3.3
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The handling process was perfect. The editor was responsive and efficient. The reviewers were professional.
Geophysical Research Letters 5.1
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: I wouldn't say that every aspect of the review process was perfect, but GRL maintained its usual efficiency despite the pandemic and people's summer vacation. Therefore, I think it deserves a 5.
Geophysical Research Letters 4.7
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: The two reviewers were professional and the editor seemed to have read the reviewer's comments carefully. The handling was extremely efficient despite the holiday season.
Geophysical Research Letters n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: The "Initial Quality Control" usually takes 4-5 days, which is quite slow. Then the EIC gives a rapid rejection decision (1 day later) without external review for considering novelty. Why not EIC directly give a decision? I guess the "Initial Quality Control" is just for checking the format and data policies. Why so long!..............................! Hope for an improvement!

Geophysical Research Letters n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Geophysical Research Letters 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Geophysical Research Letters 12.1
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: It took a while, but I got good reviews that were very helpful. I would like to point out, however, that the turnaround time listed on the GRL website is based on manipulation of the submission times. My manuscript required only minor revision (took me less than one day), but the journal demanded that I fully resubmitted the revisions, meaning that the clock was reset. Consequently, the it appears on the website that it took only 8 weeks from submission to the published paper appearing online.
Geophysical Research Letters 4.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Geophysical Research Letters 3.3
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: I was pleased with the quick but detailed and useful reviews I received from GRL, and the editor was quite efficient in handling the manuscript. Overall a very positive experience.
Geophysical Research Letters 4.6
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The reviews were received quickly and offered several suggestions for improvements, which we made before submitting to a different journal.
Geophysical Research Letters 4.3
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The review process was very efficient.
The review comments received were constructive and helped improve the manuscript.
Geophysical Research Letters n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014