Posted on June 22, 2022, rejected on July 25 (allowed to resubmit, 3 reviewers unanimously requested additional experiments);
Resubmitted on November 5, 2022, major revision on December 14 (1 additional reviewer added);
Revised on February 24, 2023, major revision on March 21 (previous additional reviewer still has comments);
Revised on April 1, 2023, minor revision on April 11;
Revised on April 15, 2023, minor revision on April 19;
Revised on April 20, 2023, provisionally accepted on April 21.

(1) 讚！ | 汤小湘

I would like to ask, is this journal chargeable? I didn't understand its guide.

(0) 讚！ | PAHseee

I want to ask, is this journal a paid journal? I didn't understand its guide.

(3) 讚！ | PAHseee

The article mentioned on the sixth floor may be quite cliché and lack originality in terms of methods, but it was actually quite difficult to achieve such a time scale and quantity scale for ocean samples at that time.

(0) 讚！ | joe888

Is this your initial rejection of the editor's review?

(0) 讚！ | 洪荒大事

The review process is quite fast. The editor said there is no problem with excessive analysis, but the results need further validation that is more advanced and suitable for priority publication. Although it was not accepted, there is no regret in trying, and it did not delay resubmission. The speed definitely lives up to the expectations of the author.

Stage Start Date
21st Sep 21 17:32:43

Decision Sent to Author 21st Sep 21 17:32:43

Under Review 20th Sep 21 06:44:51

With Editorial Office 20th Sep 21 06:44:51

Manuscript submitted 19th Sep 21 00:01:28

Author Approved Converted Files 19th Sep 21 00:01:28

Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 18th Sep 21 05:25:31

(0) 讚！ | wangzh

The review process was quite fast, but the reviewers did not understand the new analysis method we used, and the editor rejected the submission directly. It's too difficult.

(0) 讚！ | 你这还不傻

Can you please give a review or comment on the ISME Communications journal?

(4) 讚！ | wulitou

The peer review process was fast, but I encountered a crazy reviewer who doubted my conclusions based on a low-impact factor article and repeatedly asked me to conduct additional experiments. It took a whole year from submission to acceptance, which was quite a hassle.

(3) 讚！ | TTao

On the sixth floor, I also think that the mentioned paper is not very good. The statistical analysis is done well, but the content of the research and the experimental design are not good. The recent level of ISME articles is mixed, with good articles and also poor ones.

(0) 讚！ | TTao

I want to know, after my manuscript went through external review (with 2 revisions and 1 rejection), how did it appear as "under review" again after the decision was sent to the author? What is the situation? Can anyone analyze it for me?

(0) 讚！ | soil biodiversity

The previous ISME used to be the No.1 in microbial ecology. Now, journals like Nature Microbiology and Microbiome have also developed and have higher impact factors, giving everyone more options for submitting articles. This is great!

(10) 讚！ | yunqishi

To be honest, the article mentioned by the 6th poster indeed helped me a lot. It’s good to take a good look at other people’s analysis ideas. The structure of the article may be relatively simple, but did you think of doing this before that? Don't be so angry when you do scientific research. When criticizing the valueless articles or journals, shouldn't it be better to learn from others?

(19) 讚！ | 话痨山羊

Every journal has a public relations relationship. After all, scientific researchers are also humans. No matter whether they use the backdoor relationship, or use any other means, if they can publish valueless articles in the top journals, they must have such academic contacts and political resources. This does not mean that the overall level of the publication has deteriorated. Just grab a piece of valueless paper, and you start to complain, doesn’t it mean that this kind of papers can actually be published, why can’t my valueless paper? If the journal is absolutely depraved, doesn’t it happen to explain your incompetence? The quality of your work is not better than those good articles that do not need the relationship. If you want to use the backdoor relationship, there is no way for you to have the same relationship as those who had published valueless articles. Why can't you spend your energy to read some other good articles in the top journals? I believe that the proportion of good articles is absolutely dominant. The journal does not owe you anything.

(272) 讚！ | canceresearch

Spatiotemporal dynamics of the archaeal community in coastal sediments: assembly process and co-occurrence relationship. The quality of ISME is worrying now. How such an article could be published! It is uncertain to be published in Soil Biology and Biochemistry. It is 2020, and the article with this quality… Nothing new.

(258) 讚！ | web site

Very good journal. Three reviewers. One of the first reviewers’ suggestions was useless.

(0) 讚！ | dyweld@sina.com

From the past three years of submission number, ISME accepts about 1,500 manuscripts per year, and actually publishes about 200 papers per year.In this way, the acceptance ratio is less than 14%, and a considerable part of the manuscripts are rejected after being repaired.

(5) 讚！ | i

Received 30June 2014;Revised 11 January 2015;Accepted 30 January 2015;Published online 6 March 2015.The speed of review is relatively fast, and it usually takes 1-2 months.

(3) 讚！ | jyang@iue.ac.cn

and environmental microbiology The same level of journals, IF is slightly higher.The first trial was 2 months, and the overhaul was given. After the repair, it was accepted directly in February.The speed is still slow.In addition, color pictures and open access charges are more expensive.

(4) 讚！ | 匿名