As already mentionned, a very long time elapsed (more than two years) between the invitation we received from Robert and the actual submission of the first completed draft. Partly because of this delay and partly because the journal was undergoing organizational changes at the time (I later learned), our manuscript was not handled by Robert but by another Subject Editor, who remained anonymous. I will always remember the moment when I received and read the decision letter from the journal. I was so devastated and, of course, angry because the work I devoted to the journal was rejected without invitation to resubmit. This was tough. Of course, some of the criticisms of the reviewers were justified but nothing that we could not handle in a revised version, for sure. So, I decided to put the decision letter aside for several days, just the necessary time to calm down before writing a thoughtful rebuttal letter to the journal asking for reconsideration, and inquiring why our manuscript was not handled by Robert K. Colwell who formerly invited us to write this review. In the anonymous Subject Editor’s defense (but despite our original cover letter), he or she apparently did not appreciate that the paper was a literature review, and rejected it in part because there were no novel findings. As it happened, the anonymous Subject Editor was unable to handle further consideration of the manuscript, and Robert was asked by the Editor in Chief of the journal to consider our request for reconsideration. The manuscript was sent out to review again and eventually accepted after minor revisions, based on the new reviews. At the end, our perseverance paid off and the paper was published in Ecography \citep*{Lenoir2015} (currently 145 citations in Google Scholar), picked up by several news outlets and even recommended in F1000 Prime by Lee Frelich. So, the moral of this backstory is never give up.