Reviews for "Land Degradation and Development"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.3 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2022
Motivation: The editor was quick to respond to the author’s emails related to the manuscript. The first decision was to reject and resubmit. One reviewer accepted with minor corrections. The second one has a concern about the format of the manuscript and some of the technical terms. We submitted the revised manuscript, the second decision was a major revision. The first reviewer with minor corrections accepted the revision. The second reviewer still had some concerns about the content. We submitted the revised manuscript, the third decision was to accept it in its current form. The second reviewer accepted with no further corrections.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation: The manuscript was rejected immediately, it needed improvement according to the editor. We submitted another manuscript to this journal, and noticed, that the editor immediately rejected that one too, for the very same reason. After we changed some minor details of the manuscript, the paper was then considered for review, and was accepted after first review.

Throughout the whole process, the editor was suggesting different papers we should cite, was giving comments on figures (e.g. make the figures fit in one column, which we did, however at the end the figures were printed in two columns), and other remarks. We found this awkward, as we have not seen this level of involvement of an editor so far - especially in terms of suggesting new and new references (also his, or from the editorial board).