Crop and Pasture Science

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Crop and Pasture Science has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a
Disciplines: Botany

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 1 review)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.4 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 4.2 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 3.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 5.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 3.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 10.6 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The process was time-consuming, taking 14 months from initial submission to publication. One reviewer suggested including an extensive area of literature that was not covered in the initial submission. This took 6 months amidst other responsibilities, and I wanted to do a thorough job of covering making these changes to facilitate acceptance. This reviewer was happy with these changes, but the second reviewer was unavailable and the paper went to a third reviewer who had other (but less extensive) suggested changes. While the end product is much better than the initial submission, there is a diminishing-returns relationship between time spent on a paper and its quality. Some journals seem happy with publishing papers that are 90% perfect, while Crop and Pasture Science and the reviewers it chooses seem to require 99% perfection. This is great for their readers, but their high bar may mean that some good results don't get published.