Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
7.9 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The first round was very fast (less than two months) and both reviewers did a fantastic job in identifying the weaknesses of the manuscript. The second round was slower, and I found that the quality of one of the reviews was not great. After the second resubmission, the manuscript was accepted within a week. Overall I am happy with the journal.
10.7 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The initial review round took a while, but the editor was fair and the reviewer comments of good quality.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The rejection based on reviewer comments felt more like a decision that should have been an editorial desk rejection. At least the decision was made relatively fast.
11.3 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast review, the revisions were good and with constructive suggestions.
4.7 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
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.)
12.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
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
5
4
Accepted
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.)
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
5
3
Accepted
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.)
23.4 weeks
23.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
56 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.)
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.)
Motivation: I found taking 32 days to reject without sending to review quite unacceptable.
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Drawn back
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was rejected because it was deemed to species specific.