|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|
|Coral Reefs||n/a||n/a||4.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Motivation: Quick decision.|
|Coral Reefs||3.6 wks||3.7 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The process was quite fast.|
|Coral Reefs||8.4 wks||8.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||3 (good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The duration of the review process is reasonable.
Reviewers' comments are comprehensive, with constructive suggestions.
|Coral Reefs||25.6 wks||31.4 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The first round of review took far too long.
However, reviewers gave really constructive comments, which helped to improve the manuscript a lot.
|Coral Reefs||7.6 wks||19.4 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: The editor and reviewer argued that if the revisions did clarified several issues and resulted in a much clearer manuscript, however, they did had serious concerns regarding the novelty of this study relative to the previous one by two of the authors ".
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.