This is my submission process, and now two external review experts have agreed to publish. I am now waiting for the decisions of the responsible editor and editor-in-chief, I hope it can be accepted in the end. Date updates: 17 Mar 2020, review of review editor 1 finalized; 15 Mar 2020, resubmitted manuscript; 09 Mar 2020, reviewer 1 posted new comments; 08 Mar 2020, resubmitted manuscript; 29 Feb 2020, reviewer 1 posted new comments; 22 Feb 2020, review of review editor 2 finalized; 12 Feb 2020, Jinhao Zhang re-submitted manuscript. You posted new comments; 09 Jan 2020, interactive review forum activated; 19 Nov 2019, author submitted manuscript.

(8) Thank | 豪1314

The manuscript was submitted on February 15, 2019, and the first review was completed on April 6. There were three reviewers; two of them required major revisions and one medium revision. And there was 35 days to revise. The innovation should be explained and relevant experiments should be added. The revised manuscript was uploaded on May 9. On the day of uploading, reviewer 3 endorses, reviewer 2’s status was inactive and withdrew from peer review (The journal will give out the reviewer’s information, so reviewers withdraw regularly), reviewer 1 endorsed on May 24, and associate editor submitted review finalized on May 28. The technical check started on May 29, and on May 31 "the editor and editorial office are performing final verification and will contact you if ..." On June 3, it was officially accepted. It is recommended that manuscript language should be professional, and you can find a professional editing company to polish it, and then it should be logical. In this journal, it can be proceeded further only when both reviewers agree to publish. If the reviewer withdraws, it depends on the editor’s opinion. If the editor thinks the article is good, he would look for the reviewer again. If the editor thinks the article is average or there are many articles on hand, he would directly reject the manuscript. Just for reference. Good luck to everyone.

(1) Thank | 科研小小白

Ten years of submission experience, this is the worst I have ever experienced! I have never seen such a rubbish article! I submitted my manuscript in July last year. The first review returned in October. After the revision, reviewer 1 closed the forum without reason. It took a month for him to show up again. His attitude was bad, and he said that his previous review didn't mean that. He found that there was a big problem with this article. After that, he continued to close the forum and disappeared. After complaining to the editor, another reviewer, reviewer 3 was added. This reviewer is more professional. After we answered carefully, both reviewers accepted. By this time, it was February this year. I thought the problem was not big, so I did nothing but waiting for the editor’s reply. But nothing happened for a month. I sent an email and asked, editor Marcelino T Suzuki said he was on a vacation! But he said, judging from the status of the reviewers, it would be accepted soon. Who knows, in the next few days, that idiot started his ridiculous performance. He said our article was so long that it took him 4 hours to review only 300 lines! Moreover, he said there were big problems in the article, two reviewers were asked to review it again. What the fuck, what did he do before! Why he did not comment at the beginning of review. The point was that all his comments were lay, he was a totally layman but pretended to be an expert. The most important is that the student is waiting for this article to get their diploma. Deadline is coming, the master's degree is gone to be delayed, and the doctoral admission will be lost! Life is changed by a foolish editor and journal inexplicably. Never heard of it, never seen it!

(26) Thank | littledp

This journal is in the field of water environment microbials. I’m here to complain. It has been 9 months, now they tell me they have to find new reviewers? I submitted in October last year, and peer review started a month later. Then, at the beginning of February, still no news so I emailed the editor to aske about the progress. The editor promptly replied that two reviewers had returned their comments and suggested acceptance, but then one reviewer withdrew the comments and suggested rejection instead, so the editor was looking for another reviewer but hadn’t found one. I thanked the editor and continued to wait patiently. After the Chinese New Year’s holiday, my advisor told me to email the editor and recommend a reviewer; I did and we continued to wait. In March, we got the review comments. We revised the paper and resubmitted at the end of April. Both reviewers were satisfied so we were just waiting for the editor to make a final decision. After waiting for a long time, I emailed the editor to ask for the progress again in May. The editor replied that he submitted the paper publication application to the journal but the journal rejected it and asked to find new reviewers to review the paper again! Now another month has passed, still nothing. A lab member recently submitted to WR and got accepted in three months, while I’m still stuck here (crying).

(1) Thank | 1650345438@qq.com

The teacher's work is excellent, carefully pointing out many issues in professional English expressions and correcting them. At the same time, providing suggestions for professional English expressions that are very valuable for future English writing reference. This article was basically accepted for publication and smoothly accepted after one month of submission, with no modifications made during the revision due to English grammar errors or expression issues. Therefore, I highly recommend this teacher.

(0) Thank | xin LUO

The speed is fast, and the editor is diligent and responsible.

(0) Thank | 副研究员

Usually, this journal sends manuscripts to 3 to 4 reviewers, some of whom are very slow.

(0) Thank | 刘皮蛋

Excuse me, how do we proceed in the end?

(0) Thank | 小章鱼吃柠檬

How long does it take for the review to be finalized?

(0) Thank | Merino

May I ask how long it will take to Review Finalized?

(0) Thank | Merino

Submit manuscript, June 14, 2024
Editorial review and external review, June 17, 2024
R1, July 6, 2024, rejected, reasons include unreliable materials, insufficient discussion, inadequate analysis of targeted substances, and failure to fully reflect the value of the research (I have quantified it absolutely), don't let me find out who the jerk is.
R2, July 10, 2024, minor revisions
R3, July 10, 2024, major revisions
July 11, 2024, editor requested major revisions
July 18, 2024, resubmission after revisions
August 7, 2024 - August 14, 2024, R2, R3 approved for publication
August 14, 2024, editorial review confirmed manuscript
August 16, 2024, decision to accept
Three months and two days, thank the editor, turning bad luck into good luck, receiving rewards without merit.

(0) Thank | 冬虫夏草...

This is just a joke, the article in the est category finally ended up with a frontiers section with 117 opinions. Dude, your judgment is really speechless.

(0) Thank | mcxmcx1234

Encountering the same issue (need to provide three internal editors and three potential editors, as well as a research topic), unsure how to resolve it?

(0) Thank | yuanyshe

This is my first time submitting to this journal. The editor sent me an email asking me to recommend 3 editors within the frontier, and then recommend 3 editors outside the frontier. Has anyone encountered this situation before? How should I recommend editors outside the frontier? Any advice from friends who have submitted before would be appreciated.

(0) Thank | 清新柠檬

My article was reviewed for the first time, and the first reviewer agreed to publish it, while the second reviewer suggested major revisions. After the revision, the second reviewer also did not reply within the specified time frame, so the third reviewer was requested to reevaluate the article. Eventually, it was rejected and I was asked to separate the data into two articles and resubmit them to the journal. The result was that the South Korean editor-in-chief, Sangryeol Ryu, said that my data was not explained properly and rejected the article, even though the problem was that he did not do bacteriophage research.

(0) Thank | Dr.Chen、

Really frustrating. After re-submitting and being rejected, one reviewer accepted the publication. Another reviewer did not review within the specified time, so a third reviewer was assigned and the paper was rejected. Ultimately, the professional editor rejected it. The problem is that this editor, Sangryeol Ryu, who is not a bacteriophage researcher like the reviewers, claimed that my data was insufficient. Such a frustrating experience with the South Korean editor Sangryeol Ryu.

(0) Thank | Dr.Chen、

Submitted on
16/01/2024
Received on
18/01/2024
Interactive Review on
29/03/2024
I came back to review the comments, but the reviewer who gave me 8 pages of comments did not reply within the specified time. The editor sent another reviewer, so I need to review it again. It's incredibly slow.

(0) Thank | Dr.Chen、

OP, my experience is very similar to yours. Submitted on April 28, 2024. Reviewer 1 was finalized on May 13, 2024, with only minor comments. Up until now, the second reviewer has still not completed their review as of June 22, 2024.

(0) Thank | cly3397

The editor said that they couldn't find a second reviewer. The comments from the first reviewer were very minor and it seems like they just did it on a whim.

(0) Thank | 某不知名非专业博士

Submission on April 2, 2024, independent review on April 25, 2024. Email on May 7, 2024, shows that Reviewer 1's comments have been received, still waiting for the system to enter interactive review. However, up to today, June 11, 2024, there is still no sign of Reviewer 2's comments. An email was sent urgently to the editor, TMD, Reviewer 2, have you gone to join the Israeli army?

(2) Thank | 某不知名非专业博士

I submitted a review article on the medical direction related to gut microbiota, and it took about three months from submission to acceptance. There were two reviewers, one provided many suggestions for minor revisions. The other reviewer had fewer suggestions, but they were quite crucial. I don't think the quality is top-notch, not comparable to a first-tier journal, but it's also not bad to get accepted on the first attempt. The review process was fairly rigorous due to the need to disclose the reviewers' identities. I checked the reviewers' backgrounds and found that they were not big names in the field, but they had some achievements. The submission system was user-friendly, and the entire process was transparent

(0) Thank | SCIDog

After the submission, if both reviewers agree to accept the manuscript after review, can the editor transfer it to another journal under the same publisher?

(0) Thank | 咔咔苦苦多好多好

Received: August 18, 2023; Accepted: September 18, 2023;
Published: October 06, 2023
The article is only meaningful, and it feels like the other party will focus on the larger issues. Some minor details may be overlooked. Minor revisions will be given some constructive suggestions, and irrelevant parts will be accepted directly

(0) Thank | David 熊

I received the submission in just one month. The 117 comments indicate the poor quality of your paper

(0) Thank | 桑桑菌

Based on my submission experience, ongoing review does not necessarily mean multiple reviewers are involved

(1) Thank | 德云小生