Rockyflying 2022-12-13

First review takes three months, with one reviewer suggesting minor revisions and another suggesting major revisions. The editor rejects the submission but invites a resubmission. After conducting additional experiments, the resubmission undergoes a second review which takes one and a half months. The same reviewers are involved, with one agreeing directly and the other raising some language issues. The editor gives the authors five days to make the necessary revisions. After five days, the revised version is accepted by the editor.

Overall evaluation: The reviewers are very professional and responsible. The editor is relatively friendly. It is said that PS is also a well-established journal in the field of botany, and the overall quality of the article is good. Best wishes for everyone's article to be accepted soon!

meimei 2022-10-01

Submitted a review article. Needed to self-recommend to the editor, and the process went smoothly, taking about fifteen days to be accepted. Then it took about one and a half months for external review. The first revision came back, and a total of three revisions were made. The journal took about two weeks to accept it after that.

呵呵呵哈哈哈11 2022-05-31

Second revision, both the editors and reviewers were very efficient. The journal was very friendly.

18434761800@126.com 2021-11-19

How long has the "under review" status lasted?

ZHLGL 2021-10-21

Overall, Plant Science is an established journal, and the quality of the articles it accepts is much better than in previous years. This is largely due to the increase in the journal's impact factor. Furthermore, the journal's review process is very fast, with review comments typically provided within a month. We hope to increase the citation count and surpass the 5-point mark next year.

灌水老先生 2021-09-05

Hahaha, buddy, how come this sentence of yours is also in the comments section of the journal of plant science frontiers?

jingweimo 2021-06-03

The quality of the manuscript review is really disappointing. I recently submitted an article that I had prepared for a solid year, thinking it was completely presentable. Unexpectedly, the first feedback received stated that there were ethical issues in the article, just like another paper I had published before, from the experiments to the data to the conclusions. This comment was so powerful that the editor immediately rejected the paper, while other reviewers' feedback has yet to be received. Seeing this comment and decision is simply absurd. There is indeed another parallel work that was published in another journal earlier, but the data, methods, objectives, and conclusions are completely different from those of the paper under review. The reviewer probably did not thoroughly read the content, hastily drawing conclusions that determine the fate of the article. The editor is also quite irresponsible. As an associate editor of a journal myself, I generally do not easily conclude on ethical issues, at least not based solely on one reviewer's opinion.

易之 2021-05-21

The time under review was updated once, and it has been a month with no news.

张小飞 2021-03-18

Did not propose experimental questions, there are numerous language problems, did not provide major or minor revisions and asked for modifications. Is there any hope?

张小飞 2021-03-18

What does it mean to make changes without major or minor repairs? Is there any hope?

sdn12138 2021-02-13

Received at Editorial Office 30 Oct 2020
Article revised 7 Jan 2021
Article accepted for publication 10 Jan 2021
Overall, the review and revision process was quite fast. The first review took approximately 20 days (major revisions, no experimental requirements), and the second review took around 10 days (minor revisions accepted and quickly returned).