A junk journal from MDPI. The impact factor is estimated to arrive around 3 next year, but it is overestimated.

(2) Thank | Augment

reviewed by four reviewers, who provided critical but constructive comments and kind suggestions for further experiments, and accepted after extensive revision.

(2) Thank | WAI

M-D-P-I is a combination of a bunch of useless journals who recruit undergraduates as editors to review. The reason why review speed is very quick is that the manuscripts are probably reviewed by undergraduates.

(11) Thank | 千里秦川

Rejected within three days pending review, very efficient.

(0) Thank | 马思壮

Do you need the original tape?

(0) Thank | 咖啡猫的幸福生活

It has dropped to 6 again.......... I have read the articles in this magazine, and the quality is only about 3-4 out of 10. The number of published articles has skyrocketed to several thousand per year. I expect it to continue to decline next year.

(0) Thank | narzy

May I ask if computer vision combined with medicine can submit to this journal?

(0) Thank | 午离

The speed is really fast, and I have completed another article for graduation evaluation. It feels great! Those who have published in well-established journals are not as awesome as my experimental rubbish. Just thinking about it gets me excited.

(4) Thank | 桔梗花

Speed is originally the advantage of MDPI journals. What more do we need from a Q2 journal with an impact factor of 7.7? The number of publications is also not very high, so we can go for it!

(0) Thank | renchaunru

The speed is still fast, and the water is used to graduate.

(0) Thank | miss-u

Is it necessary to have a high repetition rate for stapling a magazine?

(0) Thank | shjwhg

Is the repetition rate of this magazine high? I forgot to check for plagiarism before submitting, and after submission, I found a 29% similarity rate.

(0) Thank | shjwhg

Excuse me, has there been any recent submissions? I have been waiting for over 20 days, and my paper is still stuck in pending review. I am not sure why the journal is taking so long to process it.

(0) Thank | zzz

The review was done quickly, but it was done meticulously. There were 10 main issues, and based on the review comments, we conducted additional experiments for over two months. The explanation of the research phenomenon has indeed delved deeper, with higher language requirements.

(0) Thank | Jamely

Cells is now the flagship journal of MDPI. We hope to maintain this momentum and continue to grow and strengthen!

(0) Thank | AB1125

The 6th floor was hit in the face so badly that it was almost unbearable to look at. "Cells" is now the flagship journal of MDPI, with an impact factor of 7.7, and it has developed well in all aspects.

(30) Thank | AB1125

The reviewer is very responsible, the editor is efficient, and the impact factor is steadily increasing. After major revisions, it was accepted for publication. Overall, it is quite good.

(15) Thank | gren

2022/5/12 Manuscript submission
2022/5/23 First review completed: Suggested revisions and resubmission after rejection
2022/6/29 Manuscript resubmitted
2022/7/4 Second review completed: Minor revisions
2022/7/6 Second review revised
2022/7/7 Notification received
2022/7/11 Article published online
As the best journal under MDPI in terms of impact factor, Cells has a fast review speed, friendly editors, and responsible reviewers. The first review provided extensive revisions spanning over ten pages. I used MDPI's language editing service, which was satisfactory and cost-effective. Overall, the submission process went smoothly, and I hope Cells journal continues to improve!

(42) Thank | dielianhua654321

You are purely being negative just for the sake of being negative. Their journal has a relatively short review period, only 1-2 weeks, as they themselves are the ones who review the articles. If the time is up and the article is not submitted, they will send reminder emails to the reviewers. This is a very good practice, and I suggest that all magazine publishers can learn from it.

(0) Thank | 任小肖

The first paper in my life, after the first submission, the reviewer provided many sharp comments. After two major revisions and additional experiments, the third submission was accepted. Many people criticize MDPI and say the reviewer is not very competent. But personally, the reviewer I encountered was quite good. They raised questions that hit the sore spots, although it was painful, it gave the entire research a new direction. Then the editor was very dedicated, always urging or encouraging me to resubmit, which left me a bit stunned. In my impression, many editors have an attitude of whether they want to accept your submission or not, but this editor's actions made me, a novice, feel like I can fight 300 rounds. This is my most direct feeling. Overall, I am satisfied with my first experience.

(7) Thank | 飞翔的rapiggy

In my paper, I predicted some hormones receptors in Early Diverging Fungi, using NCBI blast. After submission here, the two reviewers rejected my paper because they said that, you had not used any authentic database for finding orthologues.  
I became too disappointed not on my paper rejection but on the routed behaviours of reviewers if they cannot understand it well, they should be patient.  
Thanks

(0) Thank | asif.awkum.edu@gmail.com