Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.3 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The reviewers spent a lot of time giving very clear and helpful constructive criticism. The process was fair. I needed to make a lot of changes during the first revision but the editor let me have a year and then extended it when I asked (covid-related delays to work). The changes made absolutely improved the paper.
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
2021
19.4 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
2021
Motivation: Super long reviewing process
7.6 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: This manuscript was reviewed by three referees, all of whom were positive and provided constructive criticism. Both rounds may have taken a little longer time than normal, but coincided with the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.
18.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
0
Drawn back
2020
13.0 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: I had three reviewers; two of them were highly positive, and one was more negative. The very negative comments from the third reviewer were more personal rather scientific-based. The manuscript improved significantly because of the reviewers who made reasonable questions and made me improve the final presentation of my work.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2019
10.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
2019
Motivation: Some edits suggested by the reviewers were useful, whilst other criticisms seemed somewhat unwarranted or largely opinion-based. The response from one of the two reviewers was quite lengthy but could have been improved by including more concise and constructive suggestions.
6.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2013
Motivation: During the first round of reviews I had three reviewers; one highly positive, one quite neutral and one extremely negative. The very negative reviewers comments were tough to respond to as they seemed very opinion-based/personal rather than identifying a scientific flaw in my work. The editor provided very balanced advice on how to address the three quite different reviews and gave clear guidance on which points were particularly important to address. Overall this paper improved significantly because of these reviewers and because the editor allowed us the chance to improve it.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected without being set to reviewers by an editor whose field of expertise if different of that of the study. The editor comments mischaracterized the scope and results of the study. The paper was finally published in a journal with a higher impact factor than Molecular Ecology, without major changes in the results and conclusions.
10.6 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: At least it was fast
5.4 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2014
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Very swift response and good reviewers