Reviews for "Marine Biodiversity"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
16.4
weeks
16.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Took quite a long time for the editor to announce the decision after the system showed that the reviewers have finished their work. Reviewers' comments are useful.
43.4
weeks
48.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2016
30.4
weeks
69.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Of the two papers I've had published with this journal so far, this first one was to date among the longest and most challenging review processes. The length of time overall may appear understandable given the 3 reviews that had to be undertaken. However, receiving the first review 7 months after initial submission is in my opinion of very low caliber. Followed by a further 7 months and then 1.5 months for the other reviews, it is my opinion that no review process should take this long, particularly if the paper was of fairly standard length.
4.3
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: We were in general happy with the pace and level of communication received during the submission and review process. This seems to be an efficiently run journal.

Reviewer comments were fair and in some cases necessitated considerable effort to address within a relatively tight resubmission period, but in doing so I can say the manuscript was improved.