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
Ibis 9.9
n/a 2 2
Motivation: This was submitted as a short note. We received one very positive review and one rather negative, containing lots of (deliberate?) misunderstandings. Both the associate editor and the editor weighed in with plenty of constructive comments (more so than those of the referees). The editor proposed that we should elaborate the manuscript substantially, despite exceeding the stipulated word limit for short notes. According to the manuscript system (ScholarOne) the manuscript was out for a second round of review. However, once we heard back on Jan 24 2017, it was from the editor, who suggested some further changes and let us give feedback on that. We did so the following day, and then received an accept – without further referee comments – a week later. Thus, while the quality of the referee reports were not great, the editors made a real effort.