Reviews for "Ecography"

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
Ecography n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography 13.1
weeks
21.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Our experience from first submission through both sets of revisions was a very positive one. Both referees clearly spent considerable time on the reviews, and provided reports of high quality and detail that helped us greatly in reworking certain sections of the paper. The handling time was quite lengthy, but this was not surprising given the complexity of the manuscript, and the editorial team did a fine job in handling the paper and responding to queries in a timely fashion.
Ecography n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecography 11.1
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was long, but reviewers did a great job checking every part of the manuscript and appendices. Suggestions were good but required a lot of new work to be done.
Ecography 14.9
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: The review was handled badly because I had to make multiple revisions, yet on every review the decision was 'minor revisions'. Even after very positive reviews and a 'minor revision' decision the manuscript was sent out to additional (new) reviewers. The changes I was asked to make after each review by the editor could have been made on the first round of review if they had all been brought up then. This led to much frustration and took up more time than necessary.
Ecography n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Not well motivated why the manuscript was not sent out on review.