Carbohydrate Polymers

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.

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!