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 would like to ask what is the submission website for this journal now? Every time I try to access it, I receive a "Something went wrong" message.

(0) Thank | 智慧女孩不秃头

Ojeda, Gerardo

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

Can family members who have already published choose traditional non-OA publishing for LDD now, or must they pay OA fees? My RE and EE are both Ojeda, Gerardo, the speed is really fast, amazing, the submission was sent for review in just a few days.

(0) Thank | yunnan

Can I ask who your editor is? It has been nearly four months since I submitted my work, with one week in between marked as UR (uppercase). It has been in UR (lowercase) status ever since, and I am unsure if it has been sent for review.

(0) Thank | 123456hua

3.23 Accept

After going through 3 rounds of revisions, LDD generally makes a few more suggestions for modification after experts have no objections. Overall, the process is quite fast, but the speed of this journal should depend on the editor.

(0) Thank | 艾森伯格

I applied to withdraw the submission before the end of the year, and it has been about 1 year without receiving any external review results.

(0) Thank | 饮用水

Please translate the following passage into English: 无

(0) Thank | ding yue

The responsible editor is Jan Frouz.

(0) Thank | Doris

I have never seen a worse journal than this. I submitted my manuscript 15 months ago, and just asked about the progress yesterday. Today they rejected it, saying it didn't fit the scope of the journal. They provided two review comments, one positive and one negative. The negative one had feedback that was impossible to communicate. What a waste of time! This journal is absolutely a scam!!! I will never submit to it again!

(0) Thank | Doris

Who is your editor, so speechless.

(0) Thank | 请让我发论文

The first review took six months and required revisions. After the revisions, the review process took 12 months, with a period of time in between where it was forgotten and no reminders were sent. It was only remembered later and reminders were sent three times, but ultimately the manuscript was rejected by the editor. The reason given was: "Sorry authors your manuscript is still showing high similarity score. Moreover, to me this study seems fits for journals aiming at publishing environmental remediation or crop science or phytoremediation." This was the only feedback received, with no comments from any reviewers. It is unclear what they were doing during these 12 months.

(0) Thank | 寒江独钓

About half a month.

(0) Thank | goffeen

Can this journal choose traditional publishing instead of opting for open access (OA) publication now?

(0) Thank | 土豆土豆2

On January 21st, UR has changed to Ur, indicating that a review comment has probably come back. Now it is constantly Ur.

(0) Thank | 渫水布衣

May I ask what the USER ID of the old system is? I tried using the email as the ID, but it says it is incorrect.

(0) Thank | 逆光11

Where are you all seeing the real-time status? I can only see UR on my end.

(0) Thank | 逆光11

I have been 20 days.

(0) Thank | LR.C

Can I ask who your EE and RE are? I have been assigned EE for over 10 days, but haven't been assigned RE yet.

(0) Thank | 请让我发论文

1.14RE finally someone
1.15 finally UR
After waiting for 27 days, it's finally under review!

(0) Thank | 渫水布衣

I would like to ask where to send the withdrawal email. I have sent multiple reminder emails through the system but have not received any response. The process is too slow and I can't wait any longer.

(0) Thank | 123456hua

I couldn't resist and submitted twice, both taking over six months to receive the review results. The first submission took half a year to be rejected for revisions, but after resubmitting, there was no response for three months so I withdrew the manuscript due to time constraints. The second submission took 7 months to review, with one positive review, but the editor rejected it citing insufficient reviewers. These experiences are shared for reference.

(0) Thank | minzaizai