BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY

November 29, 2020, Submitted to Journal
November 30, 2020, With Editor (Editor handled it quickly)
December 3, 2020, Under Review (Peer review invitation was prompt)
December 16, 2020, Major Revise (Results from external provinces came quickly, two peers, along with Editor Huu Hao Ngo's comments, provided constructive suggestions, no need for additional experiments, provided 20 days for revisions)
January 4, 2020, Resubmitted for Revision
January 6, 2020, Revised again (three small formatting issues)
January 8, 2020, Resubmitted again
January 12, Accepted.
Overall experience sharing: (1) Manuscript formatting: Figures and tables should be placed at the end of the text, one figure per page, instead of mixed with text; References need to be numbered, otherwise, revisions will require you to add them, the submission guidelines are very detailed about these.
(2) Article writing: Emphasize key points and innovations.
(3) Responding to reviewers: Be polite and use a question-and-answer format. It seems that my response to the reviewers was not seen because within 2-3 days of revision, I received further revision comments (probably no request for additional experiments), but it is important to take it seriously.
Finally, I would like to thank B.T for the encouragement and hope that anyone reading this message will succeed.

Previously, I mentioned that if I have the chance to get published in BT, I will share my feelings and experiences.

2020.12.10: Submitted to the journal
2020.12.11: Under review by the editor
2020.12.12: Under review
2020.12.28: Required reviews completed
2020.12.29: Major revision (1 associate editor and 3 reviewers)
2021.1.20: Revision submitted to the journal
2021.1.21: Under review by the editor
2021.1.23: Accepted

Here are a few thoughts:
1. The impact factor of BT is increasing, and it feels like the difficulty of getting accepted is also increasing. If the innovation is not good enough, the paper is directly rejected, which is quite harsh.
2. The reviewers are very meticulous, and they provide numerous comments, making it challenging to make the revisions. There were seventy to eighty suggestions for modifications (although many were related to minor details).
3. The response to the reviewers' comments was already four to five pages long, which is twice the length of the article itself.
4. It seems like the editors even work on weekends to process the manuscripts. The status of the paper changes every day.
5. Innovation and potential practicality are highly valued.
6. I hope the impact factor of BT in 2021 can exceed 9.

Sincere thanks to the editor!