Reviews for "Limnology and Oceanography"

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
Limnology and Oceanography 8.1
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Limnology and Oceanography 17.0
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: I did not hear back from the journal for over a month after the initial submission, so I wrote to find out if it was being sent to review or not. They informed me that it had been sent out for review, but it would have been nice if they would have told me that instead of having to seek out that information. Then it took over 4 months to receive the outcome of the first review, which I find excessive. The worst though is that since it was accepted I waited over 2 months for a first proof, which was full of errors, I requested a second proof be sent, which took 3 weeks and was again full of errors, some of which were the same as the previous proof... it is still yet to be published almost 4 months after accepting it and will now be pushed back to the May issue (6 months from accepted date).
Limnology and Oceanography 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Limnology and Oceanography 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer comments were inconsistent in responses, which made it both hard (I'm sure) for the editor to justify acceptance and also hard to revise in preparation for submitting to another journal. One reviewer thought it should be accepted and provided 1/3 of a page of minor comments, while the other seemed to have a chip on their shoulder about something and provided 6 pages of very specific comments, some having nothing to do with content actually within the paper and recommended rejection.
Limnology and Oceanography n/a n/a 55.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Limnology and Oceanography 7.6
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The guidelines are clear and the submission process is very straightforward and does not waste time (e.g., the author submits one PDF as an email to the editor). The reviews were prompt, constructive, and mostly fair. The handling editor also made a correct judgement call to ignore one of the unfounded concerns of a reviewer who did not understand a key point. The review was prompt and all emails throughout the process were clear. A refreshing experience.