Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The reviewers were very thorough with their reviews and pointed out the methodological flaws with our study, which we were able to address. I especially liked the way the manuscript was handled by the editor.
13.7 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The reviewers and editors highlighted several problems which we had not taken into account but were very valid, which hopefully when addressed will result in an improved manuscript.
0.6 weeks
0.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Of course, I recommend this journal if we can publish the paper in it, but I am not very satisfied with the response of the associate editor and two reviewers, because they all put forward the comments not really related to the species distribution models, which is the main approach of our paper. They gave me the feeling that all reviewers are not working on species distribution models, becasue their critics are about the data we used and the resolution we determine. But the time of the process seems ok that we can get the decision quickly.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Manuscript was not considered fit for the journal.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Editor responded to my questions on the reason for rejection without review
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
7.6 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014