Scientific Reports

The process of submitting this article to this journal has been extremely convoluted. First, there was the initial round of revisions, with three reviewers raising dozens of questions, requiring major revisions. After completing the revisions, we resubmitted the article and in the second round, only one reviewer suggested minor revisions, such as abbreviations. After the second round of revisions, which took about two weeks, the editor informed us that the reviewers were satisfied with the revisions, but the editor noticed some grammar issues that needed to be addressed before acceptance. So, we proofread the article and submitted it again. After another two weeks, the editor raised more grammar and other issues that needed further revision. We made the necessary changes and submitted it once again. About a month later, the editor informed us that they were seeking new reviewers, and invited thirteen of them. By this point, our patience had worn thin, so we sent an email requesting to withdraw the article (as it had already been six months since submission). However, the editor tried to persuade us, stating that they had found reviewers who were willing to review the article. So, we temporarily decided not to withdraw. After another two months, we received revision comments from two new reviewers, leaving us feeling frustrated and perplexed. We made the revisions and submitted it again. Then, it seemed like the editor was once again seeking new reviewers, and we haven't received any updates since then. Oh my, this has definitely been the most convoluted submission experience I have ever had. I have never encountered an editor who continuously seeks reviewers, and the suggestions from different reviewers naturally vary. The never-ending cycle of revisions is tiresome. It would have been better if they had just rejected it outright. This editor is truly unprofessional!

Save your luck, share the submission process. It was submitted around June 20th, and the editor took a week to find reviewers. There were two reviewers, and their feedback was received in mid to late July. One reviewer had a positive attitude but pointed out many areas that needed improvement. The other reviewer had a harsh tone and demanded significant revisions to the article's structure. After more than a month of modifications, the revised version was returned in mid to late August. The editor spent a few days reviewing it and did not directly accept it but sent it to two reviewers again (probably the same ones as the first round). One reviewer completed the review in a week, while the other took about two weeks. By September 18th, both reviewers' feedback reached the editor, and on September 24th, the decision to accept the article was made.

This article was previously submitted to several journals but was not accepted due to various reasons, wasting more than half a year. Only I know the bitterness I experienced during this time. I am grateful for the tolerance of this journal. I used to think that it was a bit mediocre, but this time, I could feel the reviewers' level of expertise through their feedback. Their suggestions were targeted and helpful for improving the article. Through my first article in life, I have gained some insights. Whether a journal is good or not depends on the overall environment of your laboratory. If your laboratory is top-notch, fellow researchers may look down on submitting to this kind of journal, and naturally, you may consider it mediocre. However, if your laboratory's level is average and you can finally publish one article in this journal through your own efforts, it is still a reward for your hard work. I wish you all good luck and hope you can be successfully accepted by a journal that matches your article's quality.