Reviews for "Science of the Total Environment"

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
Science of the Total Environment 6.1
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Quick turnaround from editor. We felt time to resubmit was quite short given author availability so soon after the festive period but we managed this OK.

Reviewer comments were in general helpful and did improve the article. Two reviewers had feedback that was genuinely helpful while the third review was mainly of the form of "use this word because I don't like that word" which is rather subjective and necessitated a lot of quite unproductive work to address.
Science of the Total Environment 3.3
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Wonderful experience. The speed and efficiency of the journal and editor was outstanding.
Science of the Total Environment 5.1
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The review process was really fast and reviewer´s comments really helped to further improve the manuscript. Processing after second resubmission and proof-reading was within 11 hours, so increadible fast.
Science of the Total Environment 5.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Science of the Total Environment n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Science of the Total Environment n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Science of the Total Environment n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: In spite of the unfavorable outcome I appreciate the very fast editorial processing.
Science of the Total Environment 2.9
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Science of the Total Environment n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Motivation: The handling editor clearly articulated the reason of the rejection: "This work does appear to be of a high quality and is interesting but is outside the current scope of the journal."

I appreciate the editor's super fast decision.
Science of the Total Environment 2.7
weeks
2.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2013
Motivation: The communication was fast. The reviewer concentrated only on the weaknesses of the study (I mean the speculative part of the dscussion) and did not take attention to the other, well substantiated mertits. Despite the final decision was reject, I think the review and the editorial handling was fair.
Science of the Total Environment 5.7
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Science of the Total Environment n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013