Reviews for "Global Change Biology"

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
Global Change Biology 9.9
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: All my experiences with this journal have been very positive. I received two reviewer reports, both which were very constructive and helped improve the quality of the paper. The paper was handled quickly and efficiently, and once the paper was accepted it was published online almost immediately.
Global Change Biology 7.4
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: I was very satisfied with the review process. I had two reviewers, one very positive and one rather negative. The editor seemed to like the article and gave us a rejection with the chance to resubmit. The reviewer reports were good quality and although they required a large amount of work, the suggestions greatly improved the paper. We re-submitted and the paper was sent back to the initial reviewers who were both happy with the changes and the paper was promptly accepted. I was very happy with the handling, the speed, and the reviewer reports. The subject editor seems to evaluate papers objectively and I am happy that he/she was not dissuaded by the initial negative report of reviewer 2, but rather saw potential in the paper and gave us the chance to improve it. Nothing but good experiences with this journal.
Global Change Biology 10.1
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: I appreciated the quick decision. The journal also offered to transfer our manuscript (without reformatting) to one of a couple of affiliated journals they recommended. We didn't feel those were a great fit (and probably are just generic recommendations they make to everyone?), so we did not choose to go that route.
Global Change Biology 8.1
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The journal was efficient and thorough with the paper. In the first round we had 2 reviewers suggest acceptance after major revisions and one review who suggested rejection, but his justifications were not grounded. The editor recognized this, however, and we were given a reject and resubmit. The editor sent the paper back to one of the original reviewers, who indicated he was satisfied with the changes, and to two additional reviewers, who both wanted minor revisions. The editor indicated at this stage that he/she thought the paper had important results and if we could mange the revisions the paper would not go back to review. We made the changes and the paper was promptly accepted. The editor did a great job - 5 reviewers was rigorous and the paper was handled quickly and efficiently. The reviewer reports were also very well done. The reviewers praised the paper but also gave very relevant critiques that improved the quality. I was very satisfied with the review process and happy to have the paper land in the journal.
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Rapid rejection without review. No complaints here - we submitted the paper to another journal the following day.
Global Change Biology 8.6
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The submission was straightforward. GCB honoured their 60-day reviewer timeline and accepted the revised manuscript quickly. Additionally, the manuscript available through early view extremely quickly, which ultimately allowed it to be read and cited before it has officially come out.
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Very fast to immediate rejection. Rejected because it was deemed not in the top 20% of papers submitted. Fair enough, no complaints on this one.
Global Change Biology 6.6
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Plus: High quality reviews were fair and really improved the paper.
Minus: Editor was not part of the review process, so a lot depends of reviewer choice and luck.
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Though our paper was rejected for too much focus on methodological development, I was satisfied with the overall journal experience. While 2.5 weeks for a desk rejection may seem long, it was submitted shortly before the typical US winter holiday break, and therefore most people would likely hear sooner.
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Although the paper was rejected (not fitting to the journal's objectives completely), the rejection was fast. This enabled me to prepare the manuscript and submit it to another journal quickly, which I appreciate.
Global Change Biology 4.6
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Everything went very smoothly, the review was fast and efficient.
Global Change Biology 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Global Change Biology 8.0
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Global Change Biology n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Global Change Biology 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Global Change Biology 6.1
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2014
Motivation: Two of the three reviewers had only minor comments to improve the manuscript while one reviewer had a problem with one aspect of our work. After two rounds of revision and three rounds of review, all but one reviewer was satisfied with how we addressed their concerns, including that of the other reviewer. The editor finally rejected our manuscript because he/she was apparently unable to accept a manuscript if all reviewers were not in agreement. We felt the editor was very passive in the review process and could have avoided a lot of time spent revising and reviewing the manuscript if he/she had overruled a clearly unreasonable reviewer, or rejected the manuscript earlier recognizing that one of the reviewers was not going to be convinced by any changes that we made.
Global Change Biology 8.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2010