It was sent for review half a month later. Three reviewers. The feedback came very fast—a month and a half. I had reviewed manuscripts for this journal, and comments was usually required to be returned within one month. A lot of comments were given, but the three reviewers all gave good comments on the innovativeness of the article. The editor required to make a major revision in one month. Many journals give for two months for major revisions. At that time, I was out in the field and couldn't modify it wholeheartedly, so I didn’t revise. After returning, there was still half a month before the deadline, so I scrutinised the reviewers’ comments and revised them one by one. The first reviewer should be an authority in the field. He had a good knowledge in this aspect. He hit the nail on the head and asked some good questions. It helped improve the paper a lot. In the end, there were still one or two issues that could not be solved. I just explained the reason in the article. The second reviewer also had a lot of comments, and he almost gave me detailed comments on the manuscript from the beginning to end. The third reviewer had relatively few comments. After the revision, the paper was sent for review, and the paper was returned to the first two reviewers with relatively strong opinions. About a month later, the editor gave a minor revision based on the reviewer's comments. Then it took a few days to revise the paper and I uploaded it again. The editor sent the paper to the review editor for review, waiting for comments, and informed me of the acceptance one week later. Overall, the review was still very strict, the self-citation rate has dropped, and the factor has also dropped, but I am more comfortable to submit manuscripts. Fortunately, the impact factors of agricultural and forestry science journals are generally not high. I hope the new team can manage this journal well.

(15) Thank | 阿拉丁灯神

This journal focuses on soil science, and my research field is urban thermal environment. The content of the submission explained the relationship between land degradation and urban thermal environment as far as possible. New research methods and highlights must be highlighted, otherwise the section editor of the remote sensing section may reject the manuscript. The journal publishes a small number of papers annually and has a long review cycle. It took 13 months from submission to acceptance. During this period, emails for urging and inquiring were also sent 10 times, and the editor responded patiently each time. It was slow mainly because the reviewers were too procrastination, and did not returned the review comments timely. The overall feeling is that the editors and reviewers were very serious and responsible. The review comments were very demanding. A lot of new data has been added. Almost the entire article has been rewritten, but it was helpful for improving the overall quality of the article! ID/Submitted/Decisioned: LDD-19-0341/17-Apr-2019/03-Sep-2019; LDD-19-0341.R1/05-Nov-2019/18-Dec-2019; LDD-19-0341.R2/03-Jan-2020/30-Apr-2020.

(3) Thank | zhangok

It was submitted in early April 2019. The topic is about urban land development and urban thermal environment under the perspective of high-resolution images. There has been no news for almost half a year. I could not help writing a letter to urge Martin, the editor of the remote sensing section, and was told to wait patiently for the review comments of two section editors and two reviewers. And one month later, I received comment reviews requesting major revision. The review comments were very demanding and they were really difficult to answer. Because the revision has not been completed within the two-month, I wrote a letter requesting an extension of two weeks. Then it was under review after submission. Later, a minor revision was requested. It took another month to revise it. I felt too tired. The editors of the two sections have a very good attitude, but the reviewers are too provocative. And I hope that it can be published successfully.

(5) Thank | zhangok

The accusations against the former editor and the decisions made by EGU were not handled and sub-mitigated in accordance with normal procedures .

(44) Thank | Anonymous

Hello, I have also been submitting for 3 months and have been repeatedly inquiring about the status of my submission on the submission system. I have contacted the Editorial Office_LDD, which provided successful submission feedback, but have not received any response. I would like to know if withdrawing the submission should be done through the submission system or via email?

(0) Thank | 笑靥如花

Hello, my manuscript was also sent to Abhilash, PC. It was under review from March to May and only became under review in June. Is this a resubmission after withdrawal from the journal?

(0) Thank | 笑靥如花

3.13 Submitted Under Review
6.3 Under review
It has been over three months and I'm not sure if it has been reviewed and returned to the editor or if it has just arrived at the editor's desk and not yet been reviewed...
I am about to submit my resume soon. I hope for good luck!

(0) Thank | 笑靥如花

For the past two months, it has been lowercase "ur," but recently after being reminded, it has become uppercase "UR" again. I can't believe it, this is the third time. Can't they just do it properly once and for all?

(0) Thank | 请让我发论文

How to withdraw a submission? Should I directly email the editor through the system?

(0) Thank | 请让我发论文

Why is my progress so slow? The neighboring research group received feedback on their manuscript within a month.

(0) Thank | 渫水布衣

Not to mention anything else, the withdrawal process was quite fast. After submitting for nearly 6 months without any feedback, I withdrew the submission in a hurry.

(0) Thank | 123456hua

Is it necessary to keep it within 6000 words? Mine is 7000 words excluding references.

(0) Thank | mayi456

Hello classmate, I am also this editor. It has been 20 days since I submitted my article and it is still showing as "RE: Not Assigned." Is this normal?

(0) Thank | 上进秋秋

Is it normal for a submission to not be assigned an editor for 20 days? EE: Frouz, Jan RE: Not Assigned

(0) Thank | 上进秋秋

Excuse me, there seems to be an issue with the article type section in the submission system. What should I do?

(0) Thank | mayi456

The submission has been in its third year, with three revisions in between, each taking five to six months.

(0) Thank | 经典二串一

Yes, the external audit has been ongoing for 4 months now, and there has been no change in your status for over a month. There has been no response to our reminders either. Who is your editor? Are they all the same?

(0) Thank | 请让我发论文

I have also been here for five months. I joined in early December last year. The UR has changed twice, and now I am not sure what the situation is.

(0) Thank | 123456hua

It's been five months, why is the external audit taking so long?

(0) Thank | 渫水布衣

I often envy comrades who receive news in just two or three months. How come your papers are going so smoothly? I submitted mine in December last year, and so far, there has been no news from the external review...

(0) Thank | 渫水布衣

I have been submitting the manuscript on the new system for half a month, but it still shows as "Under Review". However, the old system does not display this paper. What's going on?

(0) Thank | 亦木1023

May I ask why the new system has been submitted for half a month, but the old system does not show this paper?

(0) Thank | 亦木1023

Could you please tell me why this paper has been submitted on the new system for half a month, but the old system still hasn't displayed it?

(0) Thank | 亦木1023

2025.2.4 submit
3.2 major revision
3.25 submit revised
4.13 minor revision
4.18 submit revised
4.26 minor revision
4.27 submit revised
5.3 accept

(0) Thank | duang

Do I have to create a new account on the old system as well?

(0) Thank | 哈哈难受