Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.7 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Rapid, helpful, constructive reviews and speedy editorial process. Great experience overall.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
12.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Slow editorial process - the first decision had two reviewers' comments plus those from two editors, feedback was very helpful but was informed it would be a resubmission, not a revision. However next stage was much faster and even though classed major revisions were more or less editorial changes that again improved the manuscript. Overall I am happy with the revisions process and the editors and the outcome was a much-improved text, apart from that the decisions to first ask for a resubmission may be more to keep the rejection rate up and I thought the decision-making process could be faster as per the other comments here.
14.4 weeks
23.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The review process was of very good quality. However, it took a long time after first submission before the manuscript was sent out for review.
n/a
n/a
47 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
The time to a desk reject was quite long, however, it was during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic which may have delayed everything. The Associate Editor read my paper carefully and gave a careful explanation of the rejection. I was told approximately 85% of papers are rejected.
7.1 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Reviews were of outstanding quality and definitely improved the manuscript. However, editorial decisions were very slow, each decision taking 31 to 42 days to arrive (counting only days in which the manuscript was in the editors' hand, not in reviewers').
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
23.4 weeks
23.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
n/a
n/a
56 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
I waited 8 weeks for a manuscript to rejected outright. This is unacceptable for me.
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
I found 4 weeks an unacceptably long time to wait for a desk rejection. I even emailed to the editorial office to find out what was going on, but got a meaningless one-line reply. When other journals can make a decision with 48 hours, I find 4 weeks inexcusable.
n/a
n/a
32 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
I found taking 32 days to reject without sending to review quite unacceptable.
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
2017
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
The paper was rejected because it was deemed to species specific.