蛮吉 2023-08-06

Oh, never mind. Just fix it. Give him all the necessary data. As long as the outcome is good, it's fine.

little_foo 2023-08-03

To make starch, instead of doing the most straightforward chain length distribution and molecular weight, you choose to work on data from XRD and FITR that even you cannot explain clearly... I am the editor, and I absolutely demand that you work on the first two, and the last two depending on your mood.

5www 2023-08-03

Manji, I have also encountered this situation. I am working in the starch field, and for structural characterization, I have only conducted XRD, FTIR, and Raman analysis. The editor did not specify which additional structural characterizations need to be supplemented.

minyanya 2023-08-01

Yes, the reviewers and editors are both very responsible. I also deeply understand that. The questions raised by the reviewers and editors during my first major revision were very constructive and helpful in improving the quality of my article. However, the revision process was truly challenging. Wish you good luck and hope for your acceptance soon. Also, I wish CP to continue to prosper.

zzzzer 2023-08-01

I am deeply touched by your comments. Carbon Water truly deserves its 11.2 score as a top magazine in Zone 1. From submission to acceptance, it undoubtedly scrutinizes every aspect. However, I have also learned a lot from it, and both the reviewers and editors are very professional.

I submitted this article in May, and it was rejected by the editor after a week. They provided five suggestions, so we conducted new experiments to address the editor's concerns. After more than a month, we resubmitted the article. This time, the editor sent it for review within three days, and the reviewers were also very proactive. The review process took two weeks, and on the same day, the editor requested major revisions. Unfortunately, the reviewers raised 23 additional questions and expressed reservations about the manuscript. Currently, we are working tirelessly to make the necessary modifications and conduct further testing, hoping for acceptance!

minyanya 2023-07-31

The kind editor gave a major revision, and we patiently and seriously answered his questions. Finally, it was accepted. The calculation of carbohydrates is considered satisfactory. I would also like to thank the mentor for his patient guidance. The CP is now 11.2, showing a promising trend. The reputation is also good. However, the consequence is a large number of manuscripts. There are still many examples of rejection after review and rejection after modification. Everyone must maintain a calm mindset. Try to satisfy the reviewers as much as possible with supplementary experiments and modifications. At the very least, the attitude must be correct. Good luck to everyone. (Due to the word limit, I am sharing in three parts. Due to some prohibited words, I use pinyin instead.)

minyanya 2023-07-31

The first article was rejected after being under review for almost half a month. There were four reviewers, three of whom had comments and suggested major revisions. The fourth reviewer criticized the article from beginning to end and recommended rejection. The editor rejected it, which was very frustrating. So I decided to seek revenge with the second article. I encountered a super good editor who assigned two reviewers for the first round. One reviewer provided ten questions and suggested major revisions. The second reviewer provided seven questions and rejected the article. The editor was really kind and provided four questions of their own, giving me a chance to revise. Both the editor and the reviewers were very proactive, and the time from submission to receiving feedback was only half a month. It took me over a month to make the revisions. I conducted four additional experiments and conducted various literature searches. The experiments didn't go smoothly as I had to change testing facilities multiple times, and it was difficult to obtain the drugs. I even considered giving up treatment and suffered from consecutive sleepless nights. Fortunately, I managed to obtain the desired results by using a different method in the end. I had to almost start from scratch, completely revising the abstract, introduction, and conclusion. My mentor played a significant role by helping with literature research and revisions. There were no issues with the first reviewer and the editor during the second review, but the second reviewer was very annoying. The questions raised were vague and lacked specificity, as if it was done half-heartedly. The overall comments were almost identical to the first review, directly copied and pasted, and the article was rejected. It was really bullying the author.

minyanya 2023-07-31

2023.4.19 Submission
2023.4.26 Review
2023.5.07 Major revision
2023.6.14 Submit revised manuscript
2023.6.30 Major revision
2023.7.15 Submit revised manuscript
2023.7.30 Acceptance

zzzzer 2023-07-30

7.28 major revision
Two reviewers, the editor requested a major revision. Reviewer 2 had 23 questions, which were difficult to answer. Truly deserving of being CP 1 district's top scorer with 11.2 points. Difficult to handle.

zzzzer 2023-07-23

Just make up for it, otherwise the editor won't be able to submit it for review.

蛮吉 2023-07-23

Dear brothers, have you ever encountered a situation where the editorial team directly requests major revisions without sending the manuscript for review? They asked for formatting changes, stating that it does not meet the journal's requirements. One of the issues is that the chemical structure characterization is not sufficient. I have conducted infrared spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) for the characterization of the raw materials. Is it necessary to supplement it with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)? Please advise.

KIKI叮咚 2023-07-21

Received date: 6 March 2023
Revised date: 12 June 2023
Accepted date: 7 July 2023

The manuscript was under review within a week of submission. It went through two major revisions before being accepted, with each round of revisions taking approximately a month. There were three reviewers assigned, but one of them did not provide feedback within the designated time, effectively making it two reviewers. The reviewers' comments were relatively fair and objective, indicating that the journal is likely of good quality.

scottlee 2023-07-18

7.14 submitted to the journal - This means that something (probably an article or a paper) was submitted to a journal on July 14th.
7.18 with editor - This means that something (probably the same article or paper) was received or is currently being reviewed by the editor on July 18th.

scottlee 2023-07-18

How did it turn out?

zzzzer 2023-07-16

The normal speed should be, mine has also been submitted for review and is currently waiting.

蛮吉 2023-07-15

Brother, you're going to get into trouble with this speed.

zzzzer 2023-07-12

7.11 Under Review

zzzzer 2023-07-09

Fight CP again, CP has already scored 11.2 points, becoming increasingly difficult. Since the last editing rejection, I have conducted new experiments and answered the editor's questions, and resubmitted.
7.6 submitted to journal
7.7 with editor
To be continued.

Jay_ME 2023-06-26

2023.6.25 required reviews completed.

zzzzer 2023-06-19

Lily, so I have done the structure of polysaccharides.

zzzzer 2023-06-19

Then wouldn't it be better for you to submit the materials to a higher-ranked magazine?

yilinhao 2023-06-18

Can organic polymer materials be unrelated to tumor and sugar?

Lily lucky 2023-06-18

What part is the first major repair that the editor gave?

Lily lucky 2023-06-18

What structural changes were made during the first round of investment, and what requirements were raised for the subsequent round of investment?

Jay_ME 2023-06-17

2023.6.15 submitted to journal
2023.6.16 with editor
2023.6.17 under review

Translation:

Submitted to journal on June 15, 2023.
With editor on June 16, 2023.
Under review on June 17, 2023.

zzzzer 2023-06-12

Is nuclear magnetic resonance not necessary? Not only do we need nuclear magnetic resonance, but we also need you to analyze and interpret it.

Lily lucky 2023-06-10

Do we need an MRI scan?

sun1009 2023-06-06

6.2 Submitted
6.5 Under review
6.15 Required reviews completed

zzzzer 2023-05-30

The editor raised 5 questions, rejected the submission and demanded high standards for the structure of the carbohydrate polymer.

zzzzer 2023-05-24

5.24 With Editor