2019.6.16 Submission; 2019.8.20 First review comments returned (major revision); 2019.12.2 Second review comments returned (revision); 2020.2.7 Third review comments returned (revision); 2020.3.12 Fourth review comments returned (revision); 2020.4.2 Fifth review comments returned (minor revision); 2020.4.16 Accepted. R0-R5 lasted for just 10 months. The two reviewers should be foreigners, who were especially rigorous that any small problems would be pointed out. I sincerely admired their academic rigorous attitude. Thanks Professor Susana Fiszman from Spain for processing the manuscript extremely efficiently.

(13) Thank | 随心我dong

Nov 28, 2018 submitted to journal; Nov 30, 2018 with editor; Nov 30, 2018 under review; Mar 13, 2019 minor revision (There were two reviewers, and all of them gave minor revision); Mar 15, 2019 submitted the revision; Mar 16, 2019 with editor; Mar 16, 2019 under review; April 21, 2018 accepted. ISZMAN, he was very efficient. Both times, the manuscript was processed on the same day and sent for review. Thanks a lot, to professor SUSANA FISZMAN.

(7) Thank | HHHH

The manuscript I submitted in mid-May was under review 45 days before the editor rejected it. One of the reviewers didn't read my article carefully, made some unreasonable opinions, and gave some opinions out of context. It was not convincing, and we wrote a letter of appeal, with a total of 12 pages of comment responses, hoping to succeed in the appeal. There were two reviewers. The first one basically had no comments, and the second one offered 600 words of comments. However, judging from the content of the comments, he probably didn't understand my article, and I suspect he didn't even read it carefully. He gave me some advice in the results and analysis section, but let me add sampling steps. "Come on, this is results and analysis. You need to look at the materials and methods section. I’ve already said it in detail there." I also made in-depth discussions about other constructive comments in the initial submission, and he even asked me to add more explanations. Judging from the carelessness of the reviewer, there was every reason to believe that he did not seriously review my article. I am not submitting a manuscript for the first time, nor is it the first time being rejected, but such review comments are the first time to see. There are not many good journals in the field of food colloids. I hope that Food Hydrocolloids will not disappoint everyone's trust. At the same time, I also share my experience with colleagues. Our laboratory is not a big one, and we do not have contacts with the editorial office or well-known experts in the field of food colloids. When I recommended reviewers, almost none of them was those I familiar with. It is possible that this time my manuscript was sent to an expert not in the same field. Judging from the opinions he gave, I guess he should not be in the food field.

(59) Thank | laoyang

A good journal in the field of food research. The impact factor is not as high as Food Chem, but the quality of the papers is equivalent to Food Chem, and the review cycle is much shorter. However, I think that the highest-quality journal in food research is J of Agricultural and Food Chem, but I don't know why the impact factor of this journal has not risen much. Maybe because many schools have not bought the ACS database. I submitted one paper, one month for the first review, and accepted after the major revision. The two reviewers gave pertinent comments, and it is clear that the two reviewers have a good understanding of the topic of the article. The reviewers invited by Food Hydro are all well-known exerts.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Submitted on June 22, 2024
Returned for revisions on November 7, 2024
Revised and resubmitted on November 26, 2024
With editor on November 27, 2024
Under review on December 18, 2024
I can only say that it's really a waste of time, even eating shit is not as enjoyable.

(0) Thank | ccc1113

I am in a similar situation as you, I also submitted my application around mid-August and still haven't received any results. I check every day, but there are often long periods of silence.

(0) Thank | mei1111

My RRC has been pending for a month now, and there has been no progress. I submitted it on August 8th, but still haven't received any outcome. It's very frustrating.

(0) Thank | 科研狗的春天

Really slow we twenty days; ur twenty days (normal); rrc more than twenty days and still not decided.

(0) Thank | jfun

Hello, may I ask how long did your first review process of rrc last? I have been in the review process for 13 days now, and it has been rrc the whole time. The public account shows that both reviews have been completed.

(0) Thank | mei1111

Hello, may I ask how long your RRC has lasted and what were the subsequent results?

(0) Thank | mei1111

8.29 接受

(0) Thank | BABAXU

How did the article turn out in the end, was it accepted?

(0) Thank | sunny1991

Did the OP submit it for review?

(0) Thank | caojiabo

Did the original poster submit the article for review later?

(0) Thank | Sicons

I have been with editor for 16 days

(0) Thank | Alen00

It has been 14 days with no news from the editor, and the date hasn't changed

(0) Thank | 发发发！中中中！

Still not submitted for review? It's been so long

(0) Thank | 发发发！中中中！

5.28 submit
5.29 with editor

(0) Thank | 发发发！中中中！

Just follow the Aiswell official account

(0) Thank | 发发发！中中中！

Hello, I want to ask how did you know how many reviewers there were and even who the reviewers were? How did you get this information? I am very curious

(0) Thank | Accepted

4.26 submitted to journal
4.27 with editor
5.9 with editor

(0) Thank | BABAXU

Good luck, good luck

(1) Thank | 科研小小废柴

Generating PDF, please wait for a while

(0) Thank | xiaolianguai

Hello, I'd like to ask the teacher how to deal with the flashing of the "build pdf for approval" window?

(0) Thank | Sara

I would like to ask why the window flashes when submitting the manuscript, specifically at the "Build PDF for Approval" stage

(0) Thank | Sara