Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2023
Motivation: This was a reject with the possibility of sending in a revision as a new submission. One review was short and vague. The other was medium-length. It cited a bunch of papers of historical interest only, suggested additional analyses that weren't on my point, and made a key claim that just wasn't true. The editor's decision was mostly based on a personal reading: the editor wanted the text restructured and key analyses stricken. I disagreed with a lot of the feedback, but my experiences with other ecology journals have been even worse.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
11.1 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
4.7 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
Motivation: My manuscript was handled in a professional manner and in good time. The reviews were of a high quality and the editor was fair in their decision making.