(Continued) The first review result was received more than one month after submission: it was rejected and recommended resubmission after revision. Judging from the English habits, the recommended Japanese reviewer was not one of the two reviewers. The first reviewer believed that this article was highly innovative and had significant discoveries, and raised some very professional questions, and suggested adding a reference strain for comparative genome analysis. The second reviewer's opinion was rather strict, and it was recommended to add a very professional genome analysis. After receiving the comments, I revised the paper while learning the new content. I had other tasks during the day and could only revise it at night, and it took nearly 3 months to revise it. It was resubmitted in early May, and I received a response in the second review within one month, adding a reviewer. The first reviewer thought there was no problem and could be accepted; the second reviewer thought poor English, and then nicely gave suggestions for English revisions throughout the manuscript. The additional third reviewer also believed that the paper had no major problems, but the discussion part needs additional literature. According to the reviewer's comments, I still worked during the day and revised at night. It took 3 weeks to fix it, and then it was accepted after 7 days of submission. During the period of the epidemic, AEM cancelled the requirement that the revised version must be submitted within 45 days. Then, the editors and reviewers were nice, the review efficiency was very high, the opinions and suggestions were also very professional, which greatly improves the quality of the paper. Although the AEM impact factor is only 4, it has a very good reputation in the industry. It is recommended to submit more manuscripts to it for those who do not chase IF. Finally, I suggest that doctoral students and postdoctoral students in related majors submit more manuscripts to AEM.

(9) Thank | yyuangy

2020.3.23 Submitted; 2020.3.23 Sent for review; 2020.5.5 Review comments returned; 2020.5.15 Revised submission; 2020.5.15 Accepted.

(5) Thank | Peter

AEM has been published for more than 100 years and has been selected as one of the 100 most influential journals in the world. This journal is recognized in the microbiology field at home and abroad, and most of the authors that get published in this journal are well-known European and American scientists.  The review speed is super-fast, but the reviewers can be tough. I submitted in March 2016 and received comments in 18 days – about 5 pages of comments from three reviewers. The three reviewer’s opinions were very positive, but it was recommended that I re-do my entire experiment. The editor gave the re-review opportunity, although I refused to accept the comments from the reviewers about my manuscript. Overall, I was very impressed regardless of the final result. The reviewer's opinions were very constructive.

(3) Thank | ＧＨＧ

Is this journal chargeable?

(0) Thank | wz

Isn't this journal a non-OA journal? Why is there a publication fee?

(0) Thank | wz

First submission on 2024-04-03. Two months later, received a decision to reject and resubmit, with major revisions requested by one reviewer and minor revisions by another (most likely major revisions required by other journals). Resubmitted on 2024-06-18, but a month later received feedback from a third reviewer with minor revision suggestions. The only issue was that the reviewer who requested major revisions was not completely satisfied with some changes, but the editor's decision was to reject and resubmit (other journals would probably only require minor revisions at this point). On 2024-07-25, submitted for the third time, and two days later the editor accepted the manuscript. Overall, the reviewers for the journal were professional and provided very detailed feedback, but it is unclear whether ASM Publishing now rejects submissions unless they only require minor revisions in order to shorten the average time to publication.

(0) Thank | cjxxl

Soil microorganisms related, external audit for more than 3 months, 2 reviewers with over 70 comments, rejected and resubmitted, replied with over 10,000 words, expert opinions were very professional and in-depth, accepted directly after resubmission, considered as the top journal in my mind.

(0) Thank | 大卫科波菲尔

The environmental microbial virome group, ISME, and EM were not sent for review due to insufficient ecological content. AEM underwent minor revisions for one month, with two reviewers, and was accepted upon resubmission.

(0) Thank | geohhyy

After being rejected by mBio, it is recommended to submit to AEM. The same day, the decision was made to resubmit to AEM, and the process took 2 months from resubmission to acceptance, which went very smoothly. Wishing AEM continued success. Below is the process experienced after submission for reference.

Decision Sent to Author 2024-04-21 21:25:05
Manuscript Accepted 2024-04-21 21:25:02
Under Review 2024-03-14 13:09:54
Reviewing Editor Assigned 2024-03-14 13:09:54
Initial QC 2024-03-12 05:09:49
Manuscript Submission Incomplete 2024-03-12 03:33:43

(0) Thank | koohung

Yes, a layout fee is required

(0) Thank | cookies123

As a top journal in the field of environmental microbiology, friends conducting related research can boldly try. It took nearly 10 months for my submission to be accepted, from rejection to major revision to acceptance. I went through four reviewers, who raised very detailed and professional questions. The editors were also very responsible. The process was torturous, but the outcome was satisfactory

(1) Thank | Amerry

Hello, I would like to ask if this journal is subscription-based?

(0) Thank | xiaohuihh

**
The first review took 59 days, which was the result of urging for submission. The review speed was a bit slow. Rejected for resubmission, minor revisions, and accepted.

**

(0) Thank | ENNNN

There is a time difference called jet lag

(0) Thank | 明冠玉杰

Posted on 2022.4.18, received the first review on 2022.6.10. The editor encouraged resubmission after rejection and the reviewer made major revisions. 
Resubmitted on 2022.8.15, received the second review on 2022.9.18. The reviewer requested minor revisions again. 
Returned on 2022.9.25. 
Accepted on 2022.9.30. Overall, it is a good journal with professional reviewers. However, their language is sharp, which made me feel a bit angry. I made serious modifications and provided point-by-point responses as requested. Thank you for the professional feedback from the reviewers and the editor's suggestions. Best wishes!

(9) Thank | 西大满满

Review Speed: 1.0 | Submission Hit Rate: 25.0
Research areas emphasized: Comparative Genomics; Microbial Molecular Biology; Enzyme Mechanisms
Experience sharing: This is the third revision, resubmitted and quickly accepted. This time the editor made the final decision directly. Overall, the editor is very nice and will evaluate based on the quality of the article and the opinions of the reviewers.
Manuscript Accepted 2022-09-15 15:00:31
Under Review 2022-09-15 14:08:49
Reviewing Editor Assigned 2022-09-13 16:50:11
Initial QC 2022-09-13 04:47:39
Manuscript Submission Incomplete 2022-09-11 03:41:02
The first reviewer had no comments after the major revision, indicating acceptance, while the second reviewer raised many issues, some of which were nit-picking. We combined the literature and experimental data to refute the opinions of the second reviewer, and the editor also saw that the second reviewer was nit-picking. The manuscript was rejected for the second time, but we persevered, carefully revised based on the reviewer's opinions, and resubmitted for the third time.
Manuscript Rejected 2022-09-05 23:26:52
Under Review 2022-08-17 08:29:04
Reviewing Editor Assigned 2022-08-15 15:17:09
Initial QC 2022-08-15 01:46:08
Manuscript Submission Incomplete 2022-08-15 00:12:41
Two reviewers, one major revision and one rejection. The editor suggested resubmission, and after modifications for one month, we resubmitted the manuscript.
Manuscript Rejected 2022-07-22 04:42:31
Under Review 2022-06-27 12:49:53
Reviewing Editor Assigned 2022-06-27 12:49:53
Initial QC 2022-06-21 10:25:55
Manuscript Submission Incomplete 2022-06-20 23:13:29

(0) Thank | 宗室伟彦

Original text: 楼主你的审了多久啊，我的50天了还没回来，迷茫了

Translation: How long have you been waiting for your approval, OP? It's been 50 days for me and still no response. I'm feeling lost.

(0) Thank | Wang Thiago

What result will there be after 50 days? It has been over 40 days here and still no news about the review.

(0) Thank | winemakerDu

41 days under review. No response at all, feeling a bit confused.

(0) Thank | winemakerDu

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission hit rate: 50.0 
Sharing experience: Thank you editor Haruyuki Atomi, who was still working hard at 8:30 on Sunday evening! I received the acceptance email at 8:30 on Sunday evening! Excited heart, trembling hands!

(0) Thank | 风陵文科

The reputation of this journal in the field of microbiology is very good. The reviewers are very professional. After several rounds of revisions, the manuscript was finally accepted. Each time, I received reviewer comments within 40 days.

(5) Thank | 一一c

First, gather information from seniors, then have teachers check it carefully

(0) Thank | 明冠兴慧

Review speed: 1.0 | Submission success rate: 50.0
Emphasized research direction: Microbial methods experience sharing: The two reviewers were very responsible and provided detailed suggestions. They also kindly offered advice on modifying sentences. It's the first time I've encountered such nice reviewers when submitting an article. I would like to thank AEM magazine here, thank you!

(0) Thank | 风陵文科

The corresponding author is the overall responsible person for the project, responsible for the project's funding, design, writing of articles, and quality control. They are also responsible for communication with journals during submission, peer review, and the entire publication process

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德

The first author of an SCI journal article is not necessarily the only one, as there is no fixed standard on how many there can be. This is because different SCI journals have different policies on the number of corresponding authors. For SCI journals that only accept one corresponding author, if a paper lists multiple corresponding authors, the first corresponding author will be automatically selected as the corresponding author. For SCI journals that accept two corresponding authors, two corresponding authors can be listed. Other requirements follow the same principle. In other words, the number of corresponding authors listed by the authors must comply with the regulations of the target SCI journal. The first author of an SCI paper is usually the person who has made the greatest contribution to the experiment and writing of the article, and is the person who is listed first in the authors list. However, in collaborations, the situation of co-first authors often arises. As for the number of co-first authors, there is no clear rule, as it is closely related to the workload, length of the article, requirements of the publication, and recognition by the institution. Generally, 2-4 first authors in an SCI paper are most common

(0) Thank | 维尔娜菲茨杰拉德