Reviews for "Land Use Policy"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
30.3
weeks
60.6
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2022
Motivation: Terrible response times and little/no communication from editors. After 3 months post-submission with no status update I messaged the editors but only received an automated reply back that they can't respond to every query. I got the first response from reviewers only after 30 weeks. After revisions, the second response came after 20 weeks. After more revisions, third response came after 8 weeks (was finally accepted). Quality of reviews and fairness of editor(s) was good, but only consider this journal if you are prepared to wait 17 months for your paper to get published.
n/a n/a 97.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
Motivation: Even though I have published two papers in the LUP in the years of 2019 and 2021, I am not satisfied with long initial screening periods after 2021. The editor rejected the paper after 4 months despite dozens of similar papers in the same journal. You need to click on a confirmation statement when you submit your paper. It states "The initial review process can last up to 4 months". Alarming. A waste of time. Besides, I realized that some papers written by the colleagues in the network of the editorial board can be accepten within significantly shorter times. I suppose that the LUP works on a basis of "rendez-vous". I will not prefer to submit my works to the LUP any more.
n/a n/a 122.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
Motivation: As the status of my manuscript has remained unchanged, I asked 62 days after submission if there has been any further progress on my submission. I just received a standard answer that my manuscript is currently undergoing editorial assessment. Finally, I got a desk rejection after 122 days. I am frustrated of waiting, since I am currently completing a PhD, I am depended on a quick review.
n/a n/a 94.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
Motivation: I find it unacceptable that an editor sits on a paper for 13.4 weeks before desk rejecting it. This is a waste of valuable time for hard working authors. I will probably no longer target Land Use Policy.
25.0
weeks
25.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: We had to wait quite long for the outcomes of the first review round, but after we received the editor's letter the whole process unfolded quite quickly. The reviews were useful and helped us to improve the text.
28.1
weeks
28.1
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: After not hearing anything from the editor for almost 5 months, I send them an email to which they responded promptly, telling me that they haven't managed to find any reviewers for my paper. They asked me to be patient and after a couple of months more (seven in total) I received one (negative) review.
11.6
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
17.4
weeks
22.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2011
Motivation: Although it took a relatively long time for the editor to find suitable reviewers who were willing to do the job, the processing time was fast after I had made the second round of corrections as suggested by the reviewers.
44.6
weeks
52.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
6.0
weeks
8.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014