Reviews for "Agronomy for Sustainable Development"

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 Year
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.0
weeks
37.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2022
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 9.6
weeks
20.9
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: - High quality of review feedback, it contributed to improve significantly the manuscript
- Clear information and guidelines for authors
- Initial review phase's time was appropriate, review phase after minor revisions was comparatively long
- Quick response by support team when reaching out via e-mail
- Submission platform was perfectly
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.1
weeks
26.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The entire review process of the journal "Agronomy for Sustainable Development" was smooth and enlightening. The reviewers of the journal are knowledgeable and their review could potentially enhance the quality of the submitted manuscript to a much higher level. The managing editors are supportive and are flexible particularly with respect to time of submission of revisions. The issue faced by the authors are very punctually addressed by the editors which makes it easy during review and editing process.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.4
weeks
32.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 23.4
weeks
28.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The review process took 8 months in total, which is in line with the timeline provided on the journal website (214 days).
In the first (and only) round of comments (major revisions), the reports were quite detailed (2 reviewers and comments from three editors). It took us some time to revise the manuscript and respond accurately. However, I think that the review process helped improve our work. We appreciated that the editor accepted an extension of two weeks to respond to the comments. After one month from the re-submission, the manuscript was accepted for publication.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 9.4
weeks
29.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 16.1
weeks
27.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 16.1
weeks
27.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32.5
weeks
58.6
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2020
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 16.7
weeks
31.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2022
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.0
weeks
28.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2022
Motivation: Quality of review was good, and suggestions for improvements mostly were clear and relevant.
Response was very slow in both review rounds. Too bad the first response came right before the Summer vacation period, reason why it took us 12 weeks to respond.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.0
weeks
26.9
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2022
Motivation: This was the second time for me to have my manuscript published in this journal. The two manuscripts underwent a substantial revision which improved the quality of science greatly. I should appreciate those comments from editors and reviewers in the journal.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.0
weeks
21.5
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 10.9
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The editor is very responsible, and the manuscript processing speed is also very fast. The opinions of the review experts are very professional. After two revisions, the quality of the article has been greatly improved, and the article was received smoothly.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.1
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The review process was efficient and very constructive.
The feedbacks from the reviewers and the editors helped us a lot to improve the article.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39.1
weeks
44.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The reviewing process was too long; it took many months to receive the first round of comments by the reviewers. Fortunately, the comments and suggestions were very useful and helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 18.3
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 11.0
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.4
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Though the reviewing process took quite a long time, the comments from the reviewers were very useful for my manuscript. I felt that my manuscript was significantly improved after the revisions. Once again, I am really appreciate all reviewers for their excellent comments.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.2
weeks
23.2
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: I was impressed on the quality of the review reports received. The manuscript was hugely improved and also my current work has improved a lot thanks to the many things learned through the review process. The editors looked for many reviewers and were very committed to help improving the work instead of just accept/reject, which is very rare. Overall, the best one could hope for from a publication experience.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 7.7
weeks
37.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The quality of the reviews (including those from both peers and editors) is excellent. They certainly demand the highest standards and, based in our own experience, manuscripts should benefit from so many readings.

The main problem in our process was the time required to achieve a final decision. We understand the pandemic times are significantly longer than usual and that the time reviewers take to submit comments is out of control of the journal. However, during our review process, most of the time was spent in the editors’ desks, with very minor additional input from them. Only at the very end of the review process we received significant suggestions from the editors.

Excluding the time issue, the review process is top quality and is worth submitting MSs to ASD, specially when authors are under low pressures for keeping up publication rates (which is rarely the case).
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 4.6
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 18.6
weeks
27.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Reviewers were real experts in the field of agronomy
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 12.9
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 9.7
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Went relatively fast.
Good comments from reviewers and field editor.
Number of reviewer good with 3
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 14.6
weeks
31.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The review process was constructive, courteous, and overall adequate. The editor responded quickly to inquiries regarding issues with submission system. The reviews and editors acted in a timely and helpful manner that improved the quality of the manuscript. Overall a rewarding a experience - that I can recommend.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 10.9
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 16.1
weeks
23.7
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.2
weeks
26.2
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 16.9
weeks
24.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 26.4
weeks
32.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 9.0
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 21.1
weeks
32.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was good, the reviewers and the editor gave mostly helpful and fair comments and the management of the manuscript was efficient but the whole review process took too long. Waiting for 8 months from submission to acceptance is a bit too much.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 11.7
weeks
36.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The reviewers were serious and knowledgeable of their disciplines. Even though they clearly indicated that they liked the topic, they were persistent in trying to help us improve the paper quality of the paper. After the three revisions, the quality of our paper has improved substantially.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 31.1
weeks
31.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 10.6
weeks
27.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.4
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 19.7
weeks
31.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 21.7
weeks
40.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Editorial feedbacks were prompt, succinct, reasonable and courteous. Any time lapses may have been due to reviewer lags and schedules which editors might not be in control of.
Would be good for the journal to allow at least an extra figure and one extra table