Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.6 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
2023
Motivation: The handling of this manuscript at all levels was somewhere between incompetent and unethical. The first pair of reviews wasn't so great, but at least resubmission was solicited. The one review of the revision was very brief and made the bizarre claims that (1) what I'm trying to do is categorically impossible, which if true would invalidate literally thousands of papers that use such approaches; and (2) there are too many papers of this kind in the literature already – not that the topic is boring, but rather that they don't want more research published in this area regardless of whether it's novel and sound. The handling editor accepted the latter argument, which is anti-scientific. The three editors-in-chief said specifically that they "discussed and agreed the decision", so it wasn't an oversight on their part.
13.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
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
3
4
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
2
3
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
5
5
Accepted
2014