Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.6 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Very good experience. Some of the reviews were a bit intense but the reviewer implied in their message that they didn't expect us to consider some of the recommendations. It took some effort with two revisions before an acceptance in principle, but the editor was very helpful.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Response from journal: "As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to reviewers, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, even if reviewers were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, we do not believe that it represents a development of sufficient importance to warrant publication in Nature Ecology & Evolution. These editorial judgements are based on such considerations as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness.
In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal. "
In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal. "
6.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
After sending a pre-submission early on (which is required for perspective papers in the journal), we were invited to submit the full manuscript. We got a desk rejection, so we found the pre-submission step useless. The decision was very fast, so no time was wasted.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Rapid rejection. The manuscript was discussed with the editorial board who did not consider that it represented a development of sufficient importance to warrant publication in this journal. They discussed our manuscript with the editorial board of a sister journal (Communications Biology) who offered to send it to peer-review should we accept the transfer.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
They decided that the topic was not an important enough advance to warrent publication in Nature Ecology and Evolution. They discussed the content of the paper with colleagues at Nature Communications who said they would send it out for review. We transfered to NC and it was sent immediately for review.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
8.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Generally, the review process was quick and helpful. I do think that the second reviewer kept raising issues that we had already addressed and the editor perhaps paid a little too much attention to these remarks.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2017
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017