Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2025
17.0 weeks
37.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
9.6 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
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
- 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
13.1 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
17.4 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
23.4 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
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.
9.4 weeks
29.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
16.1 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
16.1 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
32.5 weeks
58.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
16.7 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
13.0 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
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.
15.0 weeks
26.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
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.
15.0 weeks
21.5 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2021
10.9 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
13.1 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
The feedbacks from the reviewers and the editors helped us a lot to improve the article.
39.1 weeks
44.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
18.3 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
11.0 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2021
17.4 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
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.
15.2 weeks
23.2 weeks
n/a
5 reports
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.
7.7 weeks
37.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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).
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).
4.6 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
18.6 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Reviewers were real experts in the field of agronomy
12.9 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
9.7 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Went relatively fast.
Good comments from reviewers and field editor.
Number of reviewer good with 3
Good comments from reviewers and field editor.
Number of reviewer good with 3
14.6 weeks
31.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
10.9 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
8.7 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
16.1 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2020
15.2 weeks
26.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
16.9 weeks
24.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
26.4 weeks
32.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
9.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
21.1 weeks
32.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
11.7 weeks
36.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
31.1 weeks
31.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
10.6 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
19.7 weeks
31.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019