Polymers

Although it is said that money can get you published, it's not as extreme as it is rumored. The article must have some innovation and content. After all, MDPI's rejection is also quite fast, so it takes a lot of effort to revise the content and format. Since it is a Q3 journal, articles with some innovation can generally be published. There is no difference between peer review and SCI journals. One reviewer's question was difficult to answer academically, asking for additional experiments and tests that were not feasible due to limited conditions. It feels like the response to the reviewer's comments could be written as another mini paper. When replying to the comments, I couldn't sleep for several days, my heart was hanging. Fortunately, it was accepted in the end.

Disadvantages: The journal currently has a low impact factor and high publication fees.

Advantages: The speed is relatively fast and stable. The editor agrees to send for external review, and serious revisions are more likely to be accepted.

Originally, I was planning to submit to Polymer Chemistry, but time was too tight, so I chose to submit to this journal as a precaution. My personal suggestion is that PhD students or those planning to pursue a PhD should not submit to this journal, considering its low impact factor. If time is sufficient, it is best not to submit to this journal. There are fast and free journals available, such as CJPS in Q2, etc. If time is limited and stability is desired, this journal can be considered. Rejections are also quick and won't waste much time. I hope this can help everyone.

Second submission of the short article (the first one was criticized because the experiment on a multi-system analysis couldn't be conducted). Received reviewer comments in about 10 days, with no request for additional experiments (all possible experiments were already conducted). Made minor revisions, but the three reviewers provided over 20 comments/suggestions in total....
Replied to each point individually, without any rebuttal (the attitude towards the revisions was very sincere), and the revised manuscript was accepted the day after resubmission.
The editor's efficiency and expertise are remarkable. Two of the three reviewers understood the topic well and raised some detailed issues that were not elaborated in the article. One reviewer was not an expert in the field, but still provided valuable suggestions based on the structure of the article, which helped improve it from a reader's perspective.
Although the self-citation rate of the journal is relatively high, I still appreciate the efforts of the editor and reviewers. I am not concerned about the warning, as long as my research work is recognized by the reviewers and myself. It is not about inflating the number of publications in the journal (especially in the field of processing, where I am aware that some of my work cannot compete for top-tier journals).
The APC fee is indeed expensive, but taking on more reviewing work can provide discounts, and many domestic institutions already have certain discounts in place for their members.