Reviews for "Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology"

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
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology n/a n/a 0.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 9.6
n/a 2 4
(very good)
(very good)
Motivation: Review process was good at keeping us informed and editor comments were helpful. The journal provided a summary of reviewer comments rather than the raw comments which was helpful to know what the editor found important but I would also like to have seen the original reviewer comments. Response time was very good. I was not aware that they required a reviewer recommendation from countries other than any author affiliated countries, so that could be clarified in their system.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 13.0
n/a 3 1
Motivation: I received three review reports very different from each other. One just corrected references and some typo mistakes. The second focused on just a secondary detail, even taken from another work, and stated that because that was controversial then the all work was to reject and our results were not reproducible. The third analyzed every single sentence of the manuscript, making a lot of very specific criticism but neglecting the entire sense. The editor just sticked to the comments of the second reviewer to motivate the rejection. I found it very unfair, especially the editor's behavior.