INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS

Received at Editorial Office: 4th May 2021
Article revised: 11th June 2021
Article accepted for publication: 23rd June 2021

This submission indeed achieved the ultra-fast review level of 2.5 weeks for the initial review, as stated by the journal. Especially in the current situation of severe overseas epidemic, such speed in the review process is highly commendable! The journal first focuses on the article's format, language proficiency, and image quality. Before submitting, it is important to pay attention to a few points: the journal requires a line spacing of 1.5, text alignment should be left-aligned instead of justified, and it is recommended to use **'s proofreading services for language refinement.

Furthermore, the journal seeks multiple reviewers, generally more than 2, and sends out invitation letters to these experts for review. The number of experts who accept the review will determine the number of opinions received for reference. However, a minimum of two expert reviews is required for the completion of the requested review opinions. In my first article, there were two review opinions, while this article has three. It is essential to carefully address each review opinion and highlight the modifications in the revised text using red font.

Posted on 2022.02.05, sent for external review on 02.11, received external review results on 03.17 and started revisions (given 20 days for revisions, excluding experimental design and data, only including descriptive text and conclusion). Uploaded revised manuscript on 04.02 and officially accepted on 04.10.
In total, it took 2 months.
The editorial department has maintained a super-efficient workflow during the pandemic, which is really commendable. They have strict formatting requirements, so I suggest authors double-check the format before submission. My first submission was rejected due to formatting issues, but the editorial department provided a sample for revision, and after making the changes, I smoothly entered the external review stage. Three experts provided their opinions, but the first one only mentioned that the suggested changes were shown in the document. However, there were no downloadable files provided by the editorial department or the submission interface. However, considering the overlapping parts of the opinions of the other two reviewers, they might have raised common issues. The revisions only included modifications to the content and did not involve experimental design and data, making it relatively simple.