Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2019
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
10.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: Please note: the original journal decision was "reject and resubmit" due to major revisions needed, but I have reported it here as "revise and resubmit". I was pleasantly surprised with the relatively quick turn-around time of the resubmitted manuscript, and surprised that the editor did not send it back out for review. The revisions were fairly substantial changes to the methods, and the addition of one more analysis, but none of it substantially changed the results or conclusions. I am impressed with the communication with the editors, the sponsorship of archiving data in Dryad, and the offer of multiple ways to communicate via Twitter, Facebook, blogposts, etc.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: No real criticisms. The speed to immediate rejection was fast, which is what you want if getting rejected without review.
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
2017
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
2014
12.0 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Although the decision after first submission took quite long, the reviewer comments were very thorough and constructive, justifying, to some extent, the long time it took to get to the first decision. Subsequent decisions were made in an acceptable time frame. The editor took on an active role in the review process and clearly read the paper and reviewer comments properly.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation: Poorly motivated why the manuscript was not sent out for review.