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 12.9
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The formatting requirements for the journal are somewhat onerous, and would make me hesitate before submitting there again (e.g. strict limitations on number of figures with no option for supplementary materials, unusual format for figures, integrated results/discussion sections). However, the review process was relatively speedy and requests from the editors were reasonable. The editors were diplomatic about reviewer comments deemed unnecessary or irrelevant.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.4
weeks
27.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Review process is so long!
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.3
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: The review process is too long compared to other journals.
Reviewers accept the paper (with various remarks), but the Editor decided to reject it.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 21.9
weeks
25.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The whole process took a reasonable time (a bit more than 6 months) and review quality was good and improved the manuscript. I appreciate that the journal is also asking to improve the paper visibility by adding an image and a blog post.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 14.7
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The editors at this journal are lovely and helpful with good constructive advise. However the whole process takes too long overall compared to other journals and so while I have enjoyed publishing in this journal (four times now) I will likely try elsewhere with my papers next time, for a quicker result.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 10.4
weeks
26.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 12.9
weeks
25.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 26.0
weeks
42.2
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: I think the revision process was perfect and allowed me learn more about writing and submitting scientific work. Thanks
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.6
weeks
34.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.3
weeks
17.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.3
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.0
weeks
24.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.2
weeks
28.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 20.4
weeks
25.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The only critique I have is that the first review took so long. The comments and advice of the reviewers as well as of the managing editor/editor-in-chief were all very helpful.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 26.6
weeks
42.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 14.0
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 16.4
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The review process was generally good. A bit quicker would have been good, but all communication with the editorial support was excellent. In addition one of the reviewer comments were good, but obviously a bit biased in that they clearly wanted several of their own papers cited.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.0
weeks
29.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The review process was very quick.
When we needed clarifications by the Editorial Office on the review process, we received answers to our questions very quickly and effectively.
The reviewers chosen by the Journal were able to improve the quality of the paper, suggesting interesting modifications.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: + The main difficulty was to find reviewers
+ Once the first revision process came, the subsequent revisions were fine
+ The final result was useful to ameliorate our manuscript
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 11.1
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 3.3
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 12.3
weeks
16.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The review process was quite rapid considering the length of our manuscript. Reviewer comments were constructive and well-articulated; the quality of our manuscript was very much improved after taking those comments into consideration. The formatting of the reviewer comments occasionally made it difficult to decipher them. Slightly clearer formatting, which separates out the different points a bit more, may, therefore, be helpful in the future.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.7
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 20.1
weeks
27.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: This long-term experiment was very complex, and this journal required a stringent synthesis of the most important outcomes. It was not easy to present 30 years of data in a reduced number of figures and table allowed by the journal. However, I believe that the final results was rewarding. Also the editorial office devoted much effort in evaluating wether this manuscript was prepared in compliance with the instructions for authors.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 23.7
weeks
29.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: This journal was very good to work with and the reviewers' and editors' comments were very helpful in creating a stronger article. The editorial team was very responsive to inquiries about the process, as well as the timeline of review, along with other inquiries. The only thing that was slow was waiting for the initial editorial and peer reviews and decision from the time of the first submission. Once we received reviews and feedback, however, the process was quite quick and the amount of time given by the editorial team for revisions was generous (4 weeks).
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 20.1
weeks
28.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Reviews were constructive and useful and I really like the journal. My only wish was that the initial review process would be a lot quicker. It took 20 weeks to hear back after the first submission. This is for graduate students and postdocs too long, and not desirable for those for whom publication pressure is not that high either.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.4
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 21.0
weeks
22.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: This is my second publication in ASDE. As was the case with the first one, the review process was, overall, very good experience. The initial reviewers made very useful comments and suggestions that helped a lot to improve the work. The subsequent rounds of review were mostly textual or editorial in nature. They were dragged on to ''R3'' due to specific journal requirements, some of which I consider a little strange. An example is the requirement to have a Figure (photo) in the Introduction Section of the manuscript. While subsequent schedules for re-evaluating revised manuscripts were great in their timing, I strongly suggest to improve on the time between initial submission and first review result. My first manuscript with ASDE also suffered from delayed initial review.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.0
weeks
18.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Prompt reviewing process. Constructive comments from reviewers and editor which helped us improve the article.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 12.6
weeks
15.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 17.7
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The review process was excellent, except for the duration of the first review which was really long (almost 18 weeks!). However, at the end of the review process the manuscript was improved a lot.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 15.9
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The reviews were helpful and fair, but the review process took longer than most journals.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 11.4
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 7.6
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 5 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The review process was rather rigorous, but at the same time, fair, constructive, and rapid.