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 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
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 14.7
weeks
25.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
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