Why does the number of review invitations for MPB decrease?

(0) 讚！ | ChengyinLi

March 5 submitted
March 5 with editor
April 5 with editor
May 5 with editor
May 31 "Unfortunately, after an initial evaluation, I feel your manuscript is not appropriate for this journal's readership." 
Waited for three months, only to receive a rejection after an initial evaluation. I have seen low-quality journals, but this experience with this journal is the worst, I do not recommend submitting articles in a rush to this journal, as it could delay graduation. The editor in charge of the manuscript has a much slower response time compared to what we have seen on letpub. We will not be submitting to this journal in the future

(0) 讚！ | 奔跑的骏马

Same question! What level of journal is MPB? The impact factor is not high, and neither is the ranking. The same goes for ECSS

(0) 讚！ | complexcc

Dear friends, may I ask how well recognized this journal is in the industry? I've noticed that many experts tend to publish their reviews in this journal as well as in the low-impact journal of estuarine coastal and shelf science. Why is that?

(0) 讚！ | 24March

9.28 Submitted
10.29 Received reviewers' comments: Two reviewers, minor revision and major revision (major revision requires extensive data reprocessing)
Due to time constraints, rebuttals were made to the major revision comments and sent back to the two reviewers
12.17
Reviewer comments: One acceptance, one likely rejection, editor provided a chance for revision, stating: if unable to make serious revisions, tendency towards rejection
Entire data reprocessed, figures redrawn, discussion revised
12.30 Submitted revisions
2024.01.28 Accepted
Wishing the journal continued success!

(0) 讚！ | tianyeouc

April 4th submitted
April 6th with editor
April 7th under review
July 13th completed review
July 20th submitted
July 24th accepted
July 31st published
- Finally accepted. Overall, the efficiency of the editor was quite high, but there were some difficulties during the external review. It took from April 7th to June 25th to find the first reviewer, and the opinions of three reviewers were not completed until July 13th. Two of them required minor revisions, and one accepted it directly. Although the review process was relatively long (probably due to the lack of available reviewers in the field), the reviewers were still very nice and thorough. They provided good suggestions for the graphical abstract, introduction, and even highlights. Overall, there were no major issues, and Editor Gui-Peng Yang did a great job and directly ensured its acceptance.
- The journal is still very good, although its impact factor has decreased a bit this year. It used to be a top journal in the Chinese Academy of Sciences Tier 2. I hope it will continue to improve this year. Best wishes for the continued success of the MPB journal!

(1) 讚！ | Pudding77

I submitted it pretty quickly last year, and it took seven days without being reviewed. I sent an email to inquire and they said the editor-in-chief was still evaluating it. Then, after another seven to eight days, it was sent for review. The comments from the first reviewer will determine the overall efficiency of the editor-in-chief, which is quite high.

(0) 讚！ | lapluring

14 Feb 2023 Submitted
16 Feb 2023 With Editor
23 Feb 2023 Still With Editor, may I ask how long until it can be under review or rejected? I'm in a bit of a hurry to graduate.

(0) 讚！ | 不知道什么名字好

Submitted to acceptance in less than 2 months, thanks to the swift handling of the editor and reviewers, without any delays or dragging. Hoping to be in the top 2 districts by the end of the year.

(1) 讚！ | daliushu

07.19 submitted to journal
07.21 with editor
08.05 under review
08.12 under review (date changed)
08.26 required reviews completed
08.30 major revision
09.27 revision submitted
09.27 with editor
09.28 under review
10.04 required reviews completed
10.08 accept
--- Finally accepted, the overall efficiency is very high, but unfortunately, the Chinese Academy of Sciences ranked it too low. I wonder if it will still be classified as a third-tier journal in the upgraded version this year.
--- After making the changes and submitting it, it went under review the next day. The efficiency of the chief editor is high!
--- Three reviewers were found, but the editor only adopted two opinions, one major revision and one minor revision. The editor gave a major revision, with three months for revision. This is the first time I have seen such a long revision time. Keep revising!
--- Overall, it's quite fast. Previously, I submitted to General Environmental Pollution and Journal of Hazardous Materials, but they were not sent for review. Finally, Molecular Plant Biology was sent for review. I hope it gets accepted.

(1) 讚！ | lapluring

07.19 submitted to journal
07.21 with editor
08.05 under review
08.12 under review (date changed)
08.26 required reviews completed
08.30 major revision
09.27 revision submitted
09.27 with editor
09.28 under review
10.04 required reviews completed
10.08 accept
---Finally accepted, the overall efficiency was very high, but unfortunately it was assigned to a low-ranking journal. I wonder if it will still be classified as a third-tier journal in the upgraded version this year.
---After making the changes and submitting, it went under review the next day. The efficiency of the editor-in-chief is really high!
---I found three reviewers, but the editor only took two opinions - one major revision and one minor revision. The editor requested a major revision, giving a three-month timeframe for revisions. This is the first time I've seen such a long revision period. Keep making changes!
---Overall, it was quite fast. Previously, I submitted to General Environmental Pollution and Journal of Hazardous Materials, but they were not sent for review. Finally, it was sent for review by MPB. I hope it gets accepted.

(0) 讚！ | lapluring

5.25 submitted, 5.26 under review, until now still...

(0) 讚！ | chq

The second day after submission, still under review after 18 days...

(0) 讚！ | chq

Posted on February 1st, under review since February 24th. In between, it changed on April 8th, May 10th, and June 8th. It has been under review until now. Is there anything longer than this waiting time? I'm about to cry.

(0) 讚！ | 每日期待毕业

Translated into English:

On May 25th, I submitted an article to the Marine Pollution Bulletin. On May 26th, it showed as "under review," and it has been under review ever since. I would like to ask any experts who have recently submitted to this journal, how should I interpret this situation?

(0) 讚！ | chq

Another submission in late December 2021, returned for revisions by the end of April, and accepted for publication one month after the revisions. Compared to EP and the overall environment, the difficulty is indeed much lower, but the review and editing process is very slow. The chief editor is still alright, but the processing speed of several associate editors is really slow. Each time, it takes a month to wait in the hands of the editor. Taking advantage of the fact that it is still a second-tier journal, I have published two papers in it. By the end of the year, the basic scoring zone will no longer exist, and it is highly likely that this journal will be upgraded to a third-tier. It is not worth submitting to it again.

(0) 讚！ | 水环境菜鸡

2021.07.26 Submitted to the journal
2021.07.27 Manuscript number assigned
2021.08.10 Under review
2021.11.27 Accepted subject to review
2022.01.06 Revised submitted
2022.01.07 With editor
2022.02.01 Under review
2022.02.27 Major revision
2022.04.02 With editor (submitted)
2022.04.07 With editor
2022.04.09 Under review
2022.04.30 Accepted
The whole process was quite arduous, experiencing two rounds of revisions, but it was also due to flaws in my own paper. After 10 months, it was finally accepted, and the outcome is good. I hope the journal continues to improve.

(1) 讚！ | 寒江独钓

I submitted two articles by the end of December 2021. One of them was accepted after two rounds of revisions, taking three months from submission to acceptance. The other article is still under review. The timeline for the accepted article is as follows for reference:

December 30, 2021: Submitted
January 3, 2022: With editor
January 20, 2022: Under review
February 7, 2022: Major revisions
February 14, 2022: Returned
March 1, 2022: Two new reviewers invited, further revisions requested
March 10, 2022: Returned
March 21, 2022: Accepted

(0) 讚！ | 水环境菜鸡

Catching up with Christmas, but it didn't delay much. In less than a month, thanks to the editor Michel Boufadel for his high efficiency in handling, the revision was completed and accepted. Previously, it would usually take about a month to receive the results for this submission.

(0) 讚！ | eaar

Stayed in the hands of the editor for 20 days before being submitted for review, too slow.

(0) 讚！ | 水环境菜鸡

Submission in October, acceptance in December, the review process was very fast with three reviewers providing many professional opinions. The manuscript was accepted two weeks after responding to the review comments. Thank you to the editor and reviewers for their efforts.

(0) 讚！ | RGzxs

Posted on July 31st, rejected on October 11th. The article has many shortcomings, including language issues. I am preparing to make revisions based on the reviewer's comments and submit it again.

(0) 讚！ | 关生与乔

Excuse me, may I ask if the author accepts articles about lake pollution?

(0) 讚！ | Lxc中中中

May I ask how many days after submitting your article with the editor it went under review? Thank you!

(0) 讚！ | 今天打球了吗

Hello, recently I just received the first review email. The editor mentioned that they have already had the English editor modify the language and asked me to make further modifications based on that. The edited manuscript is uploaded in EM (please click on "view reviewer attachment" to download the file). However, I cannot find the button or link in the system or email. May I ask what the situation is on your end? Should I send an email to the editor to inquire about this? Thank you.

(0) 讚！ | 斜风细雨不须归