The first review took 5.5 months with one reviewer; the second review took 8 months under review after revisions. After 7 months of the second review, I started to urge for a response, but still received no reply after more than a month. I urged again after 8 months of the second review, and received a rejection notice about a month later. There was only one reviewer for the second review, and the review comments were the same as the first review, focusing on grammar and wording issues. Before this, I had submitted my review to a better journal, where the reviewer only felt that my work lacked innovation but praised my writing. The whole process took about 16 months, leaving me with a feeling of malicious review.

(0) 讚！ | CYTing~

The journal is not bad, but the initial review process is too slow. It took 7 months for the first review result to come back, but once the revisions were made, it was accepted quickly. It is not recommended for those who are in a hurry to publish their articles

(0) 讚！ | yss123

The reputation of this journal is quite good, and the reviewers' comments are very professional. The only downside is that the response is relatively slow, and the review process is long, usually taking 5-6 months from submission to acceptance

(0) 讚！ | ttian

It has been more than three months, and it is still under review.

(0) 讚！ | Jermyn

It took 6 months, luckily got accepted for one. Now promoted to the first district of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, feeling good.

(0) 讚！ | xu858231321

Posted on June 6, 2020.
Two minor revisions were suggested on June 9, 2021, and the editor requested a resubmission.
Resubmitted on June 15, 2021.
Direct rejection on August 20, 2021, stating that two reviewers had comments but no attachments were provided.
Emailed the editor on August 22, and received a reply half a month later saying they would look into it; currently no updates... Not recommended to submit, as it seems unreliable.

(1) 讚！ | NCS的首席阅读专家

I spent more than half a year reading literatures. The topic of the article belongs to the direction of microbial fermentation and metabolic engineering. I sorted out the structure of the review that I planned to write, current problems and future prospects. 2019-9-4, submitted; 2019-10-28, the comments were returned. One reviewer suggested acceptance, one reviewer suggested rejection, and the editor rejected it.

(0) 讚！ | yulianjingsi

The review paper was written with my supervisor, which took a lot of hard work and was reviewed three times after submission, and it took a total year to get published. It may because that the field is too small (microbial fuel cell), so looking for reviewers for the first review took a long time (3 months). A dozen review comments from one reviewer returned, and at the same time, the editor asked me to polish the paper. The manuscript was returned one month later after completing the revisions as required. After another 3 months for the second review, 30 comments were returned. We revised and returned it exhaustedly. The third review lasted another three months, returned a dozen opinions. We rushed responding it and returned the revision. Then follows the acceptance, proofreading and publishing. Looking back, as a beginner in scientific research, I suffered a lot in terms of language and writing context. At the same time, finding reviewers is also very important. It is recommended that contributors in subdivisions can appropriately recommend domain experts as reviewers); The advantage of the article is that the discussion was more detailed, and the figures were carefully made and are exquisite, which should be a bonus. These were not required to be adjusted, and ultimately supported my publication. It took a year and I was really tired, and the IF dropped from 7.5 to 7. It might be stabilized around this value in the future.

(6) 讚！ | L2C

Editor is responsible, as long as the reviewer is found, the speed is stopped, my copy is accepted from the select for one month, the impact factor in 2011 is 6.5, I hope this year will exceed7

(1) 讚！ | 匿名

The review period for Critical Reviews in BioTechnology is too long – around a half a year. I’ll submit to this journal again if they shorten the review cycle.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

has already selectd 4Month, returning a reviewer's opinion in the middle, and mentioning 26 suggestions. The editor-in-chief requested to modify and then select again. Now I am in the second instance. I don't know how much the acceptance rate is. I hope I can

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

recently submittedAfter one article, I am reviewing, I don’t know how difficult it is?

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

2011 IF=5.287 reviewed an article, the specific difficulty is unknown

(0) 讚！ | 匿名