Reviews for "Ecology"

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
Ecology 7.1
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Drawn back
Motivation: I found the reviewer and editor's to be very insightful and constructive. As such they greatly improved the quality of the MS. More in they were returned in a prompt manner. The MS was ultimately referred to Ecosphere.
Ecology 8.4
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Ecology n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Ecology 39.1
weeks
60.8
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The paper was sent out for review 2 times and then rejected. The second round of reviews were very favorable (they were easy to address for another journal), but it was rejected for a reason that was unclear (after about 1.5 years of review)
Ecology 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Although the ms was rejected, the reviewers were fair and prompt in their responses. They offered a great deal of useful feedback which helped us revise and create a much better manuscript, which was accepted at the next journal we submitted to.
Ecology 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was exceedingly dismissive and elitist in their commentary. The ms was largely criticized for its brevity. It was specifically made brief to fit into the 'Report' format that Ecology is advertising. In the end, I think they were right to reject it. I have no hard feelings. But it was a long process and the reviews were so dismissive it should have been short.
Ecology 6.5
weeks
6.5
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Rejected