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 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.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 20.6
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Besides the 2 external reviewers, the editor in chief and the associate editor also provide a comprehensive review of the paper on both aspects, content and form. The first review round was a bit long but very comprehensive. The handling of the revised manuscript was quite efficient.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The review process is excellent. I had fast replay by editor. The review notes were detailed and very useful in order to improve the manuscrit.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 12.9
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The length of the first review round seemed excessively long, but all responses thereafter were dealt with in good time.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 18.1
weeks
21.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: This journal is very meticulous. In addition to doing a thorough job of vetting the scientific content of my article, the editor and his staff made sure that all journal requirements were adhered to completely before accepting manuscripts for publication. And they went about the process very professionally.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 8.3
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The two reviews for my manuscript were excellent. However, I would have liked to see more interaction between the the anonymous reviewers in terms of responding to some of their more content-based analyses and comments. It seemed as though my revisions were signed off by an editor, rather than by the reviewers. So this part of the review process could be clarified. Essentially, I would have liked to ensure that my response to some theoretical challenges was acceptable and/or justified correctly by the reviewers themselves.

I was quite pleased with the entire process. The deadlines for responding to comments were enough and extensions were possible. If anything, I took longer to address the comments. This paper might have been able to be finalized 1-2 months sooner. I highly recommend considering ASDE for submission. But it is important to read the author guidelines and incorporate those into your first submission from the get-go!
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 21.7
weeks
27.3
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The reviews were point full and improved the MS
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34.7
weeks
35.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29.6
weeks
29.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Review process was very long, with no information.