Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Latest review

First review round: 6.9 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The manuscript was sent out to two reviewers who recommended rejection. However, both did not seem to have put time in reading anything which they did not have clear from the beginning. The fact that we called yield in different predefined environmental categories different "traits" already seems to have caused some repulsion. Moreover, the second reviewer explicitly stated "I have only read the M&M section closely. [...] The trial design is not described at all, so there is no way of telling whether the fitted model matches the design used". I understand that this information should be added, however one could assume that someone presenting a standard phenotypic adjustment (this isn't rocket science) makes the adjustment according to the trial design. In my view, a reviewer should ask for this information in a revised version of the manuscript, but should not recommend a rejection. The quality of the reviews seemed very low.
3.0
Good process
Space for journal cover image