All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: The decision read like this:

"Thank you for submitting your work to Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (ASFS). After my initial review, I regret to inform you that your manuscript is not appropriate for the journal. The work seems well done, but we generally do not publish research focused on making efficient use of conventional inputs.

ASFS prioritizes interdisciplinary, participatory research exploring transitions toward sustainable, agroecologically based farming and food systems. We are particularly interested in work that focuses on agroecosystem redesign using ecological principles, as well as food system transformation based on agroecological production, equity, participation, democracy, and social justice."

Funny it took that long for the journal to reach a decision. I do not recommend this journal to anyone!

Motivation: he editor hasn't even read the work's abstract thoroughly; the response makes it evident. While there's no criticism regarding the quality of the manuscript, the editor stated that the purportedly 'new' methodology isn't actually novel. But this is false.

Motivation: We had two revisions in reasonable time, we were asked to remove a part of the manuscript in a reasonable way. We responded to some criticisms of one of the referees and the editor gave us right by accepting the ms.

Motivation: The manuscript was handled quite smoothly . It was rather disappointing though that even though both reviewers clearly appreciated the merit of the paper and that their criticisms were entirely addressable, the editor recommended rejection without allowing for resubmission.

Motivation: The editors were very helpful and prompt in responding. The delay in review process was on reviewer’s part as they did not respond to editor despite multiple reminders.

Motivation: The editors are reactive and precise in their answers. The review process took exactly the average 106 days mentioned on the journal website's metrics. The comments were very thorough and helped improve the paper.

Motivation: We were very satisfied with the entire submission process as well as with our editor and reviewers. All of them were competent in our field. Their suggestions were very helpful and significantly improved the quality of our paper. The entire process was also quick and without any delays.

Motivation: We had a tough reviewer, but in the end managed to convince them. The core of the argument is still the same; I'm not sure the article is two years better now, but we got there.

Motivation: We submitted the manuscript in February 2023.
At February 21, 2023, we received a confirmation that the manuscript was successfully submitted.
At May 9, 2023, we informed about the status of the article, and we received a prompt answer that the manuscript was under peer review.
At September 4, 2023, we informed again and received a prompt answer. They aswered that teh review process typically takes 12 to 16 weeks, but that there are occasions during which it takes a little bit longer.
At February 7, 2024, we informed again (this time we also emailed the Editor; not only the editorial assistant). The Editor answered promptly that the article was rejected because they could not find reviewers.
We did not receive any feedback about the contents our article.
However, the Taylor & Francis editorial team was friendly enough to do specific suggestions to send our paper to four low-impact commercial journals of Taylor & Francis.

Motivation: My article was a mechanistic study with crystal structure and to support the claim there was biochemical analysis also. They rejected by saying "it lacks the kind of deep mechanistic insight into fundamental molecular or biochemical processes". In contrast to their view, the paper is all about atomic level mechanistic analysis with crystal structure and kinetic analysis. I really dont have any issue with the rejection as it do not fit the reputation or whatever. But I really felt cheated with the reason they gave. It clearly shows that they have not read the article at all.

Motivation: The editor noted that the manuscript was more geared toward an experimental technique rather than coral reefs themselves and, therefore, would be more suitable elsewhere.

Motivation: The longest review process in my career. I submitted my manuscript in spring of 2022. After 44 days I received an email from the editor-in-chief that he read my manuscript and is sending my paper out for review. 159 days later, I send an email asking if there was any progress with the reviews of my paper. I did not receive an answer. I approached the journal once again in 2023, again without a reaction. Finally, I approached the journal in January 2024 – 20 months after the initial submission. After first receiving a generic reply about the paper being under review, two weeks later, I received a personalized apology from the journal explaining that the delay has been caused by waiting for the second review and that they had to eventually change the reviewer. The deadline for the second review being next month. Finally, after almost 22 months under review, I received two detailed reviews together with a reject decision from the editor. No mentioning of the time it took them to review the paper. To put the long story short – if you would like to have your paper reviewed in a reasonable amount of time, try another journal.

Motivation: The general review process is really good, but the time to the first decision is a bit slow. For the rest, the paper was handled properly.