JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE

Fill in the details and follow-up:

First revision: ① For the reviewer who suggested to transfer: politely and gently + provide additional experimental data to refute some of the reviewer's viewpoints with solid evidence, while humbly accepting their suggestions regarding non-substantial modifications to the text; ② For the reviewer who requested additional experiments: provide the required additional experiments; ③ For the reviewer who requested additional references: add them, anything is acceptable.

Also, suggest "providing five additional reviewers who can be used for arbitration, otherwise it will be sent back to one of the reviewers with different opinions."

Follow-up on the revision:
Oct 20, minor revision (did not send it to five new reviewers for arbitration, but sent it back to reviewers ① and ②. Reviewer ① acknowledged our revisions and suggested a few more changes; Reviewer ② agreed to accept the revisions; ③ has not responded)

Oct 20, received the revised manuscript; Oct 21, accepted.

Editor Julian Eastoe was very prompt and nice; this article mainly focuses on the colloid interface mechanism regulation during crystal growth process. Previously, it was rejected by Angewandte Chemie after a few days and was suggested to consider transferring to Crystal Growth & Design after finding a more suitable journal in the field of organic chemistry.

In addition, our research group has submitted two articles on the surface modification of two-dimensional materials for adsorption applications in the past year, both of which were accepted by Editor Zheng Gengfeng.

September 1, submission;
September 2, under review;
September 15, the status of the manuscript changed once;
September 22, received reviewer comments;
September 28, revised and returned;
September 29, accepted.

This article mainly focuses on simulation calculations. The editor-in-chief, Eastoe, is a "rising star" in experimental research. Both the editor-in-chief and the selected reviewers are very professional and their comments are very pertinent. The article has requirements for language, images, and writing style. The word count should not be too long, and there should generally be no more than 9 figures/images. The writing style of the abstract and conclusion is a key focus for the editor. Additionally, in my opinion, the key to sharpening the argument in the conclusion is to boast with solid evidence and reasoning. Everyone should feel free to do so. The journal also requires articles to be innovative, so if it can undergo review, it means it meets the innovation criteria.