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.

 

 

Plus d'actualités

BIOMASS, the third launched satellite mission designed at CESBIO !

After SMOS in 2009, and VENµS in 2017, the CESBIO Laboratory is very proud to see its third proposed mission, Biomass, reach orbit. As always, it has been a long journey from the idea, at the beginning of the century, to the selection in 2013 as the seventh Earth Explorer Mission by ESA, to the […]

Biophysical parameter retrieval from Sentinel-2 images using physics-driven deep learning for PROSAIL inversion

The results presented here are based on published work: Y. Zérah, S. Valero, and J. Inglada. « Physics-constrained deep learning for biophysical parameter retrieval from sentinel-2 images: Inversion of the prosail model« , in Remote Sensing of Environment, doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2024.114309. This work is part of the PhD of Yoël Zérah, supervised by Jordi Inglada and Silvia Valero. […]

Copernicus should keep S2A operational after S2C launch

The launch of Sentinel-2C (S2C) is scheduled on the 4th of September 2024, next week ! After 3 months of commissioning phase, S2C will replace S2A, to fulfill the Sentinel-2 mission together with S2B. S2B will later be replaced by S2D. The current plans are to keep S2A as a redundant satellite, in case something […]

Rechercher