Reviews for "Methods in Ecology and Evolution"

Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome	Year
n/a	n/a	1.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2020
Motivation: I felt the article was rejected really quickly (less than 1day), and based on the critics made by the Editor, it seemed that the article was not properly read.
n/a	n/a	18.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2020
5.1 weeks	10.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2018
Motivation: Very fast handling overall, despite two thorough rounds of reviews (which helped to improve the manuscript considerably). Always a pleasant communication with different members of the editorial office.
n/a	n/a	60.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2019
Motivation: Sixty days for an abstract-based rejection
6.6 weeks	6.6 weeks	n/a	4	3 (good)	5 (excellent)	Rejected	2018
Motivation: The manuscript was processed very quickly and efficiently. The editor gave a detailed reply justifying why he rejected the paper and did encourage us to resubmit the paper if we decided to expand it into a larger research paper.
n/a	n/a	22.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2017
Motivation: Pretty slow to reject without review.
n/a	n/a	53.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2018
Motivation: The decision of lack of fit (a single phrase) took so long (7.6 weeks).
4.4 weeks	4.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	3 (good)	Rejected	2016