Frontiers in Microbiology

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 preceded 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

2018.10.25 Submitted2018.11.2 Independent Review2018.11.30 Interactive review2018.12.17 Re-submitted manuscript2019.1.10 Article accepted for publicationThe editing process is very fast. Two reviewers reviewed and gave almost 60 comments. Some of them are more difficult to solve, but in the end, they seriously revised and responded to each comment. The last two reviewers read the revised version.I directly agreed to receive it. It may be just a matter of catching up with Christmas and New Year's Day. It is generally smoother.It was a pity that it suddenly fell to the JCR2 area in December, but I believe that it will rise back to the 1st district.

(1) Thank | 吴妮妮

May I ask why God's Frontiers in microbiology review forum can't get in?Is it a browser issue?

(0) Thank | 猪崽子佩琪

All reviewers agree that publishing an article that does not represent you will be stable, and the responsible editor will need to send it to the department editor for final decision on whether to publish it.In other words, you finally need to edit the level of the editor, and this level can be directly rejected.Variables are always available before the final accept is received, especially in the editorial, which may be a checkpoint strategy for frontiers.There have been several cases in which the editor-in-chief of such an editor has been around.

(3) Thank | 孤独的舞者

In August, I have already spit it out. This time I came to my mother...2017-12-08 contribution, 2018-01-12 for review, 04-11 overhaul started, two reviewers, comments are acceptable, 05-01 overhaul returns, and then there is no more.The 06-19 responsible editor was withdrawn, and the reviewer 1 voluntarily quit the journal editors, and the reviewer 2 was disqualified from reviewing the manuscript.By 08-16, there was no news at all.In late July, I tried to contact the new editor. The responsible editor said that he is working on it. If you don't want to wait, you can choose to retract.After reviewing the reviewer again, the review results were overhauled once, minor repairs, and 10.23 from Interactive review, the reviewer agreed to publish.It has been dragged until today 12.21.The result was rejected!!!After a year of delay, the reviewer agreed to publish, and refused to submit the manuscript.Hehe 哒~~~ The mentality is a little explosive!

(3) Thank | 林业

Two articles were submitted, with a difference of 4 days.(The content is very similar)Paper 1:3 days to distribute the editor, find the expert for 20 days, review the manuscript for more than 30 days (the first trial ends, the reviewers 1 and 2 return the comments), the reviewer 3 returns after 12 days, minor repair, repair, reviewer 3Continue to ask questions (feeling rigorous, asking for special details), after the revision returned, the reviewers agreed, and the editors began to ask questions again (it seems to be the cow in my field, saying that their group is also doing this direction,Let me explain some of the phenomena), but fortunately, I answered it and returned it after 5 days.Paper 2: 4 days to assign editors, then to find reviewers (already 81 days)...The reminder is twice, the office response is still looking for (feeling that the editor of this article is irresponsible)Summary: The cycle is not short (see your luck), and some reviewers are also very strict, it is best to do homework in advance.

(2) Thank | LOGIC

It’s slow, and at the end of March, I’ve found 3 reviewers.People, disagreements, and later found 3, a total of 6, half withdrawn two, the last four to overhaul, and then minor repair, and finally toss until August to receive

(2) Thank | DundeeKang

After a week, I haven’t been in the editor’s hands yet, I’m very confused

(0) Thank | shendu117

Specially register an account to spit.2017-12-08 contribution, 2018-01-12 for review, 04-11 overhaul started, two reviewers, comments are acceptable, 05-01 overhaul returns, and then there is no more.The 06-19 responsible editor was withdrawn, and the reviewer 1 voluntarily quit the journal editors, and the reviewer 2 was disqualified from reviewing the manuscript.As of 08-16 today, there is no news at all.In late July, I tried to contact the new editor. The responsible editor said that he is working on it. If you don't want to wait, you can choose to retract.If you are eager to graduate?Be careful...

(3) Thank | 林业

EM, the overhaul was rejected, transferred to FM, four reviewers, the first trial was faster, a total of more than 60 comments.One of the big cows asked the discussion from the new organization. After the comments were revised, the depth of the discussion part of the article increased a lot, no loss to the big cow, thank the reviewer.Overhaul in the first instance, then minor repair, receiving.Optimistic about FM, IF is expected to rush 5

(1) Thank | 活性污泥

I thought that the editor is Xiamen University may be better, but I didn’t expect it to be delayed until now. I want to select for this journal.Think twice!!!

(0) Thank | superdhy

Really pit, the editor is not very responsible, it is recommended that students who are eager to graduate do not select

(1) Thank | rewdure

Really slow, almost three months, no first trial result

(0) Thank | 啦啦科研

is not generally slow. After the overhaul, one of the reviewers agreed to receive, and the other suddenly became inactive. The interactive state has lasted for two months, and it can't be contacted.

(1) Thank | logo

It took nine months to finally receive it.The results of the first trial were only received in 4 months, one rejected the manuscript, and one overhaul.The editor will make changes in accordance with the opinions of the overhaul.The reviewer who refused to review did not read the article carefully, and there was a lot of data in the attachment, which he did not find.The level of reviewers for the overhaul is very high. They are very careful and special. They have given a lot of opinions from the experimental discussion and writing of the article. The number of words added to the reply has 6,000 words (already in a small SCI).The number of words is quite the same).After the second round of revision, the reviewer of the overhaul agreed to accept.However, the editor went to another reviewer and received the review comments after 16 days.Modified back within a week, and another week after the article was received.

(0) Thank | an1991

Investment Environmental Microbiology was rejected, transferred to FM, 3 reviewers, more than forty comments, very sharp, suggesting new calculations for the model, and responding to the review comments.After the reviewers had no comments, the editors of Duke of the United States made comments again. Depressed, it was well received.Optimistic about FM, refueling

(1) Thank | 淡水微生物

The calculation is less than 3.6 in time, but there are 4, magical.

(1) Thank | question

Slow and slow, come back and forth for half a year, and now refuse to re-attend...

(0) Thank | Adrain

The composition of the water journal is getting bigger and bigger, it is going to become plos two.

(0) Thank | M.LI

It’s really a junk journal. The editor will not submit it until one month after the editor’s review.

(0) Thank | wzqharry

three reviewers, the first reviewer size 32 comments, the second reviewer five big questions, which let the new statistical analysis model (Da Niu ah), the third reviewer's opinion is very specific, the size is also more than 30, dizzy.First trial for eighteen days, then, modified, online response.The second reviewer was dissatisfied and revised to increase the discussion.And let the touch up language.The requirements are high, and the reviewer of this journal will appear on the front page of the paper. The reviewer's opinion is really good.

(0) Thank | 沉积物

funny, the last comment misleading the public, unhappy, last year 11It started to select in the month, and there was no news after the overhaul.

(0) Thank | rayray

feels that this journal is not as fast as expected, and it is still in the editor's hands for a month.It is conceivable that even the editors don't pay much attention to this journal.If you are not in a hurry, I am afraid that I will not want to select for this journal.

(0) Thank | wzqharry