Materials

10.8 The submission was rejected, and the reason was that one of the reviewers, who had the most relevant professional background, rejected the paper twice. They need to respect the reviewers. The comments mentioned that my responses did not completely address the reviewer's questions. However, they also took into consideration the opinions of other reviewers and the improvements made to the manuscript. They encouraged making significant revisions and resubmission.

10.14 Considering resubmission, on one hand, I am worried about the long wait time as I need to use it. On the other hand, I am afraid that it will be sent to the same reviewer who rejected it before. Therefore, I prepared in two ways. One is to prepare for revising and resubmitting, and the other is to send an email to the assistant editor and the office of academic editors to express regret and respect. I reiterated the significant efforts made previously and emphasized that other reviewers provided acceptance suggestions. Then, I refuted each of the rejected reviewer's questions and cited literature as evidence. Lastly, I politely requested whether they could reconsider the handling decision for the manuscript and asked if there were any better suggestions due to the time constraint.

10.16 The article was resubmitted again.

Different people have different opinions, and wise people have different perspectives. I submitted an article to MDPI's materials journal, but the publication fee was high, and it was unfortunately given a warning. I decided to share my experience of submitting to an open-access journal: I wanted to quickly publish a good article, so I submitted to an MDPI journal. There were four reviewers, and they provided over 40 comments, which were professional and insightful. Personally, I felt that the review process was formal and professional. However, it seems that MDPI, being a Chinese-owned journal, is not well-regarded, and there are some people who have never published articles constantly criticizing it, for unknown reasons.

Similarly, I submitted a relatively mediocre article, with inadequate experiments, to another publishing company's Q2 open-access journal with an impact factor of 5.289. The publication fee was lower at $1000, but the feedback from the two reviewers was mainly about language and terminology issues, lacking substantial comments. In comparison, this review process was easier, but it lacked the professionalism compared to MDPI.

What about PLoS One? Why didn't I receive any warning? Who moved my cheese...