This was my last review for MDPI Remote Sensing, and here is why

=>

Recently, I agreed to review the following paper, which is now online:

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/7/1827

The paper had 3 reviewers. I opted for signed, public review so you can find my review for the first round here. As you can see, I had quite a lot to say about this paper, which to my opinion required at least a major revision. The two other reviews where rather light, only pointing out a few typos and making generic comments, as can be read in the review report.

To this first round, the authors replied very quickly to my review with a 6 pages document explaining why they would not do most of what I asked. Meanwhile, very little changes have been effectively made to the revised manuscript presented to round 2.

It was a busy week for me, so I missed the 3 days deadline to agree to review the second round. When I realized that, I sent a message to the editor asking for more time, and saying that the authors did not fully address the issues I pointed out in the first round. This was by no means the major revision I asked for. This email remained unanswered.

EDIT: I just got in touch with the editor. It seems that a couple of emails have been lost. I never received the reminders, they never received the email mentioned above.

Today, I received an email happily stating that the paper was accepted and published.

This was my last review for MDPI Remote Sensing, and here is why:

• When agreeing to review a paper I try to do it right and spend hours on it. In the present case this time is totally wasted and I end-up publicly endorsing a paper against my will.
• Accepting for publication  a paper that has two very light positive reviews and a rather in-depth negative review, without even waiting for the negative reviewer feedback, is probably good for the authors and the business, but it is bad for science in general.