Reviews for "Oecologia"

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
Oecologia 10.4
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The first round of review required only minor changes to the introduction and discussion (no method or results changes at all), but the editor decided to "reject with a recommendation to resubmit". Seemingly an attempt to manage their review speed metrics.

On re-submission, one reviewer was unable to be re-engaged, and so a new reviewer was found. This new reviewer's comments were the most critical of the manuscript, but would have been very easily addressed if we had the chance. Unfortunately the editors decided to reject without giving us an opportunity to address these concerns many months into a long process. Overall, slow process and disappointing editorial decisions.
Oecologia 18.0
weeks
35.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very long and I think the second review process was not clearly justified, notably after taking into account previous reviewer comments during the first round. At the end it took more than a year, four reviews and a hesitating handling editor that did not want to take a clear decision, before my manuscript was finally accepted for publication. Such publication delays are not acceptable for a journal of this quality.
Oecologia 23.7
weeks
23.7
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Took so so long to review. Emailed editors 3 times with response of "it's out to review". When I finally got reviews, one of the two was completely worthless.
Oecologia n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oecologia n/a n/a 24.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I was very disappointed that the journal sat with the paper for over 3 weeks before alerting us that it would not be sent out to review. I understand limited space is an issue and that editors need to be selective in what articles they will send out to over burdened reviewers, but an immediate rejection should take place in under a week so as to not waste the authors time.
Oecologia 14.9
weeks
14.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
Oecologia n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Oecologia 53.0
weeks
53.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: No information received during the first six months after the submission, until the message, following my request, that the handling editor was having problems to secure a second reviewer, but that, given the long time elapsed, the EiC had asked him to proceed with what he had presently. Then, no news until about ten months since the submission, when, after my new request, I was informed that all the due reviews were already with the handling editor and a decision could be expected soon. Then, no news for two more months, when the paper was rejected with no possibility to reply in spite of a quite negative and a quite positive evaluation by two different reviewers, none of whom explicitly denying the possibility to revise it since none of their concerns required new analyses and data to be addressed. Actually, most of the negative comments had to do with the apparent lack of clarity of some parts of the manuscript rather than structural/methodological problems of the study. No further reply to my new message expressing my obvious disappointment by how the whole procedure was carried out.
Oecologia 37.0
weeks
37.0
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The online submission system was fast and simple. Communication from the journal was poor. According to the online system, the article was not sent out for review for 3 months, and then only after I emailed to inquire why its status had not changed. The paper's status did not change for another 5.5 months. After I emailed again to inquire about its status, the editor gave a rejection notice within 24 hours based on their personal opinion and comments from one reviewer.