Just submitted an article, currently pending review

(0) 讚！ | 豆是豆豆

Do you have the option to choose open review?

(0) 讚！ | 小明仔

2024.05.26 Pending review
2024.05.28 Under review

(0) 讚！ | z_y1

It's strange that the name they wrote for the journal itself is Agriculture, but here it says Agriculture-Basel

(0) 讚！ | ggyydai

Welcome to submit articles for the Special issue- Risk Assessment and Remediation of Agricultural Soil Pollution
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture/special_issues/O22EPDT787

(0) 讚！ | 一品豆浆

Is the journal under review already submitted for review?

(0) 讚！ | Haoyang Z

How much is the layout fee for this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 大白梨o

Please translate the following paragraph into English and Japanese, and title them ":" and ":": 3.22 posted

(1) 讚！ | niming

24.3.20 Revised

(0) 讚！ | niming

24th March 2018, Afternoon Maintenance

(0) 讚！ | niming

3.15 pending decision

(0) 讚！ | niming

Received Date: 2 February 2024
Revised Date: 1 March 2024
Accepted Date: 6 March 2024
Submission to First Decision (Days): 32
Submission to Publication (Days)
Round of Revision 1

(0) 讚！ | Jerry2024

24.2.27 Morning submission pending review
24.2.27 Afternoon under review

(2) 讚！ | niming

At first, the review comments were close to a major revision, with many methods added. However, it significantly improved the completeness of the paper. It took a total of 53 days

(0) 讚！ | 硕博

Submission-First Review-Revision-Second Review-Acceptance, it took 28 days!!!

(4) 讚！ | kingsir

This journal is really fast. It takes about a month from submission to publication. The content is extracted from a master's thesis, with no issues in logic and structure. Three reviewers provided 26 comments, requiring major revisions. It was very tight with only 7 days to complete the revisions, but I managed to send them back by the evening of the sixth day. The three reviewers were likely a senior colleague, a junior colleague, and an outsider. The senior colleague's comments were the fewest but very sharp, even recalculating the experiments; the junior colleague's comments were easier to address; and the outsider's comments were the most challenging, with seemingly light suggestions, but actually quite difficult. For example: More discussion about the novelty of paper. Overall, the submission process went smoothly.

Received: 2023.08.01
Revised: 2023.08.14
Accepted: 2023.08.17

(0) 讚！ | CBBB

Hello, I currently have a manuscript on hyperspectral-based detection of trace elements in crops. May I ask if it is suitable for this journal?

(0) 讚！ | ONE TOP

I am a special invited editor for the journal. Welcome to submit your work.

(0) 讚！ | wty0803

Translation: Special Issue "Heavy Metal Contamination Evaluation and Remediation Strategies in Farmland"
Submission deadline: August 31, 2023
Special Issue homepage: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture/special_issues/U43972H734

(0) 讚！ | wty0803

4.20 Submission
4.21 Review
5.18 Major revision
5.24 Revised
5.25 Minor revision
5.26 Revised
5.27 Accepted
5.28 Proofreading
5.28 Published
The efficiency is indeed fast. Previously, I submitted other articles and received rejection within a day. This time, the speed is unbelievably fast.

(0) 讚！ | 你有多特别

5.4 Submission, 6 Review, 13 Minor revisions, One week for revisions, 23 Acceptance

(0) 讚！ | 123

The text translates to: "I had two submissions rejected within two days. May I ask which journal you submitted to again?"

(0) 讚！ | undefined

I don't think MDPI's journals are as good as rumored. The first round of review took over 40 days with three reviewers, who provided over 60 major and minor revisions. Some of the issues were quite challenging, but they greatly helped improve the quality of the article. After making the minor revisions and resubmitting, it took a total of 2 months for acceptance. The whole process is similar to previous journals I have submitted to. The article went online the day after acceptance, which is incredibly friendly. The English editor also made grammar revisions throughout. Highly recommended.

(3) 讚！ | SBSctd

2022.9.25. Submission
2022.9.26. Review
2022.12.2. External review feedback, major revision
2022.12.18. Submit revised manuscript
2022.12.22. Acceptance

The review process was a bit slow, but both external reviewers were very professional and provided extensive feedback in two large PDF documents, which greatly helped improve the quality of the paper.

(4) 讚！ | 薄月行空

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.

(5) 讚！ | 欺言乐翁