Reviews for "New Phytologist"

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 Year
New Phytologist 4.9
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
New Phytologist n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
New Phytologist n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
New Phytologist n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
New Phytologist 3.6
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
New Phytologist n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Following an internal editorial assessement it was decided that the study is limited in scope and novelty, and would be more suitable for a more specialised journal.
New Phytologist n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Although I was not satidfied with the quality of the internal editorial assessement I appreciate the speedy editorial handling.
New Phytologist 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: 26 weeks, no comment ......
New Phytologist 4.6
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
New Phytologist 10.9
weeks
24.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Good referee comments, which improved the manuscript; yet the editor did not seem to dare taking decisions. Despite positive remarks, he insisted on several rounds of further revision before it was finally accepted.
New Phytologist 3.0
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: This was an invited paper and it was handled properly. Timely review, fairly adequate comments and a reasonable decision.
New Phytologist 3.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: Quick peer review process, good comments, but due to lack of novelty rejected.
New Phytologist n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: It took the editor two weeks to decide to reject it immediately, without peer-review. The decision was poorly motivated on one incorrect argument; it seemed to be based largely on political reasons.
New Phytologist 6.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The decision was disappointing, and I do not agree with a large part of the reviewers criticism, but the Journal was fairly fast and professional on handling the MS.
New Phytologist n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
New Phytologist 9.6
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015