Reviews for "WIREs: Water"

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
WIREs: Water 10.4
n/a 2 3
(very good)
Motivation: We proposed the manuscript to the journal (since it is normally by invitation only). Our proposal was swiftly accepted.

The review process was quick and reasonable. One reviewer seemed to have been selected from our list of proposals, another seemed totally unconnected. The quality of reviews was not outstanding, but decent.

The editors were friendly and encouraging, as well as competent in the field. The whole process was very speedy and we were satisfied with the result. Submission to final decision took about 3 months.
WIREs: Water 7.1
n/a 2 3
(very bad)
Motivation: After the submission of the revised article, the editor informed that it was sent to the previous reviewers for review. However, both the reviewers declined to re-review the revised article. It was not even sent to new reviewers for review. The associate editor himself started to review the revised article. He took 3 long months to review and rejected the article without any solid reasons. We had addressed almost all the reviewer comments in the revised article.

According to my perception, the editors are very lazy/negligent in carrying out efficient and timely reviews and are reluctant to think about the efforts of authors who wait for about 7 months with an intention of getting acceptance.