Reviews for "Journal of Biogeography"

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
Journal of Biogeography 10.1
weeks
12.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: There were numerous rounds of revisions, but each time the journal and editors responded fairly and in a timely fashion. Overall, a positive experience.
Journal of Biogeography n/a n/a 57.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We received only cursory justification for rejection (2 sentences), related to lack of perceived novelty. I accepted the decision (perhaps I chose the wrong journal), but was highly disappointed by the amount of time it took to make this decision. I'm going to submit this paper to a preprint server before I resubmit to another journal.
Journal of Biogeography 9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: The Chief Editor wrote "Your manuscript has been examined editorially and I regret that I am rejecting it without formal review". This was followed by the comments of the Subject Editor referring to that "the manuscript has received three excellent reviews, recommending either ‚reject’ (Reviewer 1) or ‚requiring substantial revision and re-re-view’ (Reviewers 2 & 3). The reviewers´ comments were not provided to us. We had to ask for these and it took some days to get them. The comments were not available in the online system either.
Journal of Biogeography n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Biogeography 7.7
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Biogeography n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Journal of Biogeography 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Biogeography 5.9
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: After acceptance, the decision was rescinded due to a mix up with the Editor in Chief (who was newly appointed) haven't not read through the revised manuscript. He did so promptly and the paper was then accepted, but this process did delay the publication slightly and was not all that professional. This brought down my rating of the process, which was otherwise good (I would have given a rating of 4 had this not happened).