Chemical Engineering Journal

Actually, CEJ has always been considered a top journal in our field of chemical engineering and is relatively easy to be cited. I'm not sure about its audience in other fields, but for us, it's not a new journal. The CEJ warning I mentioned earlier was actually something I saw in the comments section of Letpub. At that time, there was a link to a medical website from Henan Province, so I compiled the sources of various warnings in the comments. There is no warning from Clarivate Analytics or the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which are the most authoritative sources. I couldn't find the original source from China Institute of Scientific and Technical Information, and the one from Henan Province was just a homemade PDF with no substantial content. These past few days, when I checked the acceptance of my paper, I found that the so-called warning from a public account and the one from Henan Province have been deleted. I'm also puzzled as to why a medical journal would submit to a well-established chemical engineering journal. In the submission process, I believe there is something to learn from any reviewer's comments. At least, the peer review process in our field is not lenient at all, and there have been many rejections in our group. Later, we published more than 10 other articles. There have been doubts about the rapid increase in impact factor, but when comparing the annual submission volume and types of manuscripts with certain high-impact SCI journals that are visibly manipulated in China, it's clear that they are very different. Ultimately, whether to withdraw the submission or not is the best decision as long as the author and advisor believe so. There's no need to feel regretful. I hope the author can take into account the reviewer's comments and successfully publish in their desired journal.

Finally, after countless calls and requests, the time schedule is as follows for everyone's reference:
Submitted on July 1st;
It seems like it was sent for review about a week later, but I didn't record the exact time. I just remember receiving the review comments after approximately three weeks.
Received the revision comments on August 7th (given 21 days for revision). There were four reviewers, three of whom clearly recommended it, and one mentioned that it had good innovation but needed answers to a few questions before making a further decision. All four reviewers raised very professional questions, which indeed improved the quality of the article. This aspect is much better than JMCA...
Submitted the revised manuscript on September 5th (the experiment application was delayed for a month);
The editor returned it for formatting on September 7th, and I completed the changes on the same day and resubmitted it;
On September 8th, it was "with editor" in the afternoon and "under review" in the afternoon. After that, it was truly agonizing, checking the webpage every day to see the results;
On September 28th, the required reviews were completed in the afternoon, and it was accepted in the evening.
This article has been submitted since the beginning of the year, and I personally feel that it has good innovation, but it was never sent for review, which was really discouraging. It was not until July that I started submitting to CEJ. The online comments about this journal are mixed, but through this submission process, I personally feel that CEJ still strictly controls the quality and is not as easy as everyone says, especially with the professional reviewers.