Reviews for "Water Resources Research"

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
Water Resources Research 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Two of the three reviews were very similar and certain passages were nearly copy-pasted from each other. After bringing this to the attention of the handling editor and the editor in chief, they responded by saying that the two reviewers couldn't have colluded on their reviews because they have never co-authored a paper together, without following up with them directly. The quality of the two reviews was also very low and it was obvious that they had not fully read the manuscript. The third reviewer who had clearly paid more attention to the manuscript had advocated for major revisions but the paper was rejected.
Water Resources Research 11.6
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: I am a frequent submitter to WRR and always have a positive experience. In this case the reviews were a bit less rigorous than usual, but overall the process was easy, quick, and fair.
Water Resources Research 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
Water Resources Research 15.3
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Water Resources Research 7.9
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: While we did not receive the outcome we were hoping for (paper rejected), we got 4 reviews in a very timely manner (<2 months), all of which had helpful advice for improving the paper for submission to a different journal in the future.
Water Resources Research 7.6
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The review process was timely, the reviewer and editor comments were helpful, and the online submission system was fairly intuitive. I have no complaints.
Water Resources Research 10.1
weeks
14.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Good, constructive review process. Knowledgeable reviewers who obviously took the time to read and understand the paper and provide useful comments which definitely improved the quality of the final accepted paper.
Water Resources Research 6.7
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Throughout the submission and review process the automated system and the editorial board were professional and clear. Following initial reviews the editor provided clear instructions on how they would like the reviewers' comments to be addressed.
Water Resources Research 4.3
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Water Resources Research 8.6
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2014
Water Resources Research n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2010