Hello, may I ask if you need a service to delete comments or modify nicknames?

(0) 讚！ | 广东靓仔

Hello, I have been waiting for half a month and the status of my submission is still "ED: Not Assigned, EiC: Reuter, Julia". I would like to ask how long does it usually take for this journal to send the submission for review?

(9) 讚！ | 罗静

May I ask if contacting the journal through the submission interface is the correct way? It has been 3 months since my paper is under review and I haven't received any updates yet.

(0) 讚！ | 303687931

Has anyone ever submitted this experiment before? It exceeds 7 pages in the experimental category, and each page costs 200 euros, right?

(1) 讚！ | yuandingmama

Hello, I would like to ask what documents need to be uploaded when submitting an article. I'm not very clear about it for the first time. Wishing you a successful career and a happy life~

(0) 讚！ | 今天中了咩

Posted on April 16th, it showed "under review" on the same day. I waited anxiously for 3 months, and on July 15th, I received a reply stating that my submission was rejected because they couldn't find a reviewer. I am truly speechless.

(0) 讚！ | 榛榛巧克力

Translated text: 

I submitted the article in early December 2020, but the editor requested a rejection and resubmission. I resubmitted on January 4, 2021, and received the review comments after about a month. I returned the revised draft one and a half months later. Finally, on April 28th, the article was accepted and is currently being published. I am grateful to the editor and the reviewers!

(3) 讚！ | 嘟嘟仔

My research direction was nutritional active ingredients and the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases. There were a lot of data, a total of 8 figures, including cell experiments in vitro and a randomized controlled intervention trial on population (there was only a figure in this part of the population). It was previously submitted to ATVB, rejected the next day, and then transferred to MNFR. It was submitted on June 18, 2019, and comments returned on July 22. There were 2 reviewers in total. The first reviewer asked 6 questions, all of which were some queries and suggestions for follow-up research (for example, it was recommended to discuss on patients who already have thrombotic diseases. We conducted a RCT study. Patients with hyperlipidemia were intervened for 6 months, so we could only respond that we agreed with the reviewer’s opinion and would discuss it further in the follow-up), and we were not required to supplement experiments; the second reviewer asked 3 small questions, including a query and 2 suggestions for modification, no supplementary experiments. The editor asked me to return the response within 2 months. I returned it on August 22 and it was accepted directly on August 29.

(7) 讚！ | 冰冷的落叶1

The manuscript was submitted on January 5, 2019, but there was no news for three months, so I sent an email to inquire about the results. It was said that it was a reviewer who did not return comments in time and they had to look for a new reviewer. Major revision on April 18, which was mainly due to several methodological issues. Minor revision was made on April 26 and accepted on May 2. The process went smoothly and there were no difficult questions. The main research was the function of peripheral vascular.

(3) 讚！ | 开心豆豆

Reviewing the manuscript took 3.5 months, exceeding the average review time. One of the reviewers did not return the comments in time, and a new reviewer was found, which wasted the time. It was fast for major revisions and minor revisions, taking less than 20 days in total. The reviewers had strict requirements on methods section, and required more content to be added to the discussion. Quite friendly.

(3) 讚！ | 泼辣PHD

submitted a month after being rejected, it is recommended to re-attend after the revision, after the revisionAfter receiving the submitment for half a month, the editor's opinion is very pertinent, and the description of the experiment is high. Unfortunately, it has now dropped to Zone 2, and I hope to work hard to return to Zone 1 next year.

(1) 讚！ | WOT

The active ingredients of human milk, including animal experiments and cell experiments, were rejected after 2 months of submission, and the overall comments were very pertinent. The editors were also very nice.After resubmission

(0) 讚！ | WCY

The journal is really difficult, and it requires 80% of the first-instance.

(3) 讚！ | 潜心修行

Irrigation is really not serious. In a recent article, ferulic aci can make a good effect, and it is also a cow fork.

(8) 讚！ | fake

Look at the recent articles, I really can't compliment them. I just don't want to enter the stream. Take the recent issue as an example, the Chinese people have nearly 50% irrigation.The journal’s influence factor will continue to fall.

(3) 讚！ | honestly

The journal is good and the review process is generally fast. However, the quality of articles in recent years is generally poor. In the past two years, the impact factor has continued to decline. The reference value and credibility of the article are also low.

(3) 讚！ | 无为

twice, and the results are all about 1 month. After the revised draft is submitted,Received in 5 days, but the speed to the online and official news is not very fast.Pure cell experiment is basically very difficult

(0) 讚！ | cassie

Review speed is super fast, 13 days!Received within 4 days after the overhaul.The article is required to have certain innovation, and the requirements of the experimental method are also strict and careful.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Submitted on October 22nd; the first-instance opinion on November 21st was minor repair, and was repaired after 10 days; the second trial was 15 days, returning to minor repair; December 19th repairBack, January 3 accepted

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Journal homepage URL: http://www.wiley-vch.de/publish/ ... /cover/current.html

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Reviewing speed is fast,Half a month.In recent years, the impact factor has risen rapidly and has become one of the best in food publications.I just selectd for a review and is reviewing it.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名