Agriculture-Basel

Content made by undergraduate students with the 985 Project (the ability is not to be underestimated, not just for the sake of filling the article), in fact, can also be considered as a small exploration of a new field. I believe that the innovation is average, but the research significance can be guaranteed and the workload is still substantial. Submitted at the end of October, under review for 24 days, and then received major revisions. Among the three reviewers, one hardly made any comments, one was obviously a colleague in the same field, and provided eight suggestions to add content on climate change, including figures, introductions, and discussions, as well as a flowchart. The third reviewer was a strict junior colleague who raised more than thirty issues, including five major and difficult suggestions to improve. Because of him, I had to apply for an extension of 10 days since 8 days were not enough. I wrote a 5000-word response specifically for this reviewer. After uploading the revised manuscript, I received minor revisions three days later, and this time only reviewer 3 had concerns, but his attitude was already very positive. After the minor revisions were made, it was accepted the next day.

Overall, this time I encountered a difficult reviewer. If there were only reviewers 1 and 2, I believe it would have been a very smooth submission process. However, because of the addition of reviewer 3, who is an expert in the field, I endured ten days of struggle and anxiety. Nevertheless, I am happy. The quality of the revised article has visibly improved, and more importantly, several major issues that I had overlooked in my research became clear during the process of addressing the reviewer's comments. So I am truly grateful to this responsible junior colleague. The journal requirements are not high, but having professional reviewers is equally satisfying.

The review process was fast, but still relatively responsible.

The original Chinese manuscript was originally submitted to a prestigious domestic journal. The reviewers estimated that it was reviewed by students and did not carefully review it. They provided a bunch of irrelevant review comments. Some said that my results were problematic, even though they did not look at the evaluation criteria. The editorial team rejected it based on their opinions. I was frustrated and didn't want to deal with the editorial team and these reviewers anymore. So I translated and submitted it to Agriculture. I submitted it on February 10th and received the first round of comments 18 days later, with a request to revise within 10 days. I couldn't wait for 10 days, so I revised it in 3 days. I wrote a reply to the comments, which ended up being around 10 pages long. Although it felt like writing another mini paper, I had to do it because the reviewers had some specific and challenging comments that needed serious replies. After the revision, it took another ten days for both the reviewers and the editorial team to come to a satisfactory conclusion. It was then accepted for publication. It took a few more days for proofreading and typesetting, totaling 31 days. One more day and it wouldn't have been within a month.