Reviews for "Journal of Environmental Management"

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 Environmental Management n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast decision.
Journal of Environmental Management 10.7
weeks
25.9
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Journal of Environmental Management 29.0
weeks
34.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Journal of Environmental Management 16.6
weeks
21.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Journal of Environmental Management n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I had seen several other papers published in this journal with the similar research area. Surprisingly, the editor thought that our manuscript's not within the scope of the JEMA!
Journal of Environmental Management 3.9
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: One referee made useless comments like "you should change the text" or "let someone who is a native speaker check the English" (even though my co-author is native English speaker and the manuscript was checked by a professional proof-reading agency). Additionally, the reviewer was demanding information which was definitely included in the manuscript. Still I tried to address all his/ her comments in a satisfying way. Yet, in the end the reviewer rejected with the sentence "It looks like a normal paper". No helpful comments during the whole process. Luckily, when I contacted the Editor, he agreed with me and exchanged the one reviewer. Ulitmately, the paper was accepted.
Journal of Environmental Management 31.0
weeks
31.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: (1) It takes super long time to get response from the journal and the reviewing results (more than half a year).
(2) The comments given by the reviewers were, to my opinion, not professional enough. They do not understand the design of our field experiments, but they didn't even ask us to explain the reason of the design but just said it's not realistic and reject. Another example is, one reviewer criticized we didn't include energy consumption of irrigation at farm in our energy balance and required us to recalculate the whole balance. But we didn't use irrigation at the farm at all.

Overall speaking, my experience with Journal of Environmental Management this time was not good. However, we still learned something from the experience.