I submitted an article. It took 12 days for the first review, and the comments were not bad. It was submitted for the second review after the revision. No news has been received since the resubmission on December 1. The status of under review has changed 3 times in the middle. I was really anxious. Dear friends, please give me your advice. Here is the submission process! 2020.10.07: Submitted; 2020.10.16: With Editor; 2020.10.20: Under Review; 2020.11.02: Required Reviews Completed; 2020.11.03: Major Revision for Reconsideration; 2020.12.01: Revision Submitted to Journal; 2020.12.01: With Editor; 2020.12.11: Under Review; 2020.12.24: Under Review; 2021.01.05: Under Review. Good luck to me!!!

(0) Thank | Dr. Luan

2020.04.02 submit; 2020.04.03 with editor; 2020.04.15 under review; 2020.05.05 under review; 2020.05.27 under review; 2020.06.13 major revision; 2020.07.10 revision submitted to journal; 2020.07.15 under review; 2020.07.27 Required Reviews Completed; 2020.07.28 minor revision; 2020.07.28 revision submitted to journal; 2020.07.28 with editor; 2020.07.30 accepted. The first review time was relatively long and the later stage was still very fast.

(3) Thank | pangmeimei

I can’t help but complain about it. I submitted two articles in three months. What I did was about chitosan hydrogel, and the editor was John McCarthy. Let talk about the first article. There were 8 reviewers and all of them required major revision, and I was required to supplement the experiment to prove the mechanism of a click reaction, and supplement the infrared to prove the existence of hydrogen bonds. Due to the reason of pandemic, I couldn’t supplement the materials required, so I listed the references and wrote a more than 50 pages of reply. Unexpectedly, in the second review, I was still required to supplement the material to improve the mechanism. For those studying chemistry, this couldn't be easier. Just like the acid-base reaction, the mechanism is already mature, so you can use it directly. Because there was really no way to supplement the materials, I had no choice but cited the references to show that everyone does like that. Unexpectedly, in the third review, I was still required to supplement, I was speechless. This reviewer was so stubborn! As a result, it took 3 extra months. It has been more than 7 months, but the article is still under review. Let’s talk about the second article. There were 9 reviewers, two of them required minor revision, five required major revision, and two rejected it and required major revision. I was required to supplement the SEM, infrared and animal experiments. I had no choice. Some school had already opened. I used human relationship, and made the infrared and SEM experiments, but the animal experiments were not supplemented. The revised manuscript has been submitted, and I am waiting for the second review. I am speechless. There are so many reviewers! I have already submitted about 20 articles, and there were only 4 reviewers at most. As there are too many reviewers, their opinions on the same issue are different. If you submit to this journal in the future, you must specify that you don't want this editor, Simon John McCarthy, to be responsible for handling your own articles.

(18) Thank | tiankong

The review period for Carbohydrate Polymers is average. We submitted back in February and got word from the editor that our manuscript was accepted in mid-June. I’d recommend this journal; the editor always kept us in the loop with regards to the status of our paper.

(7) Thank | Alexander

In addition to the five reviewers in the first review, there were also editors who provided more than 50 comments. We replied with an 80-page response letter. It was exhausting to make so many changes, but the process was indeed quick. Best wishes for CP to continue improving.

(0) Thank | dark_阳光

You review very quickly.

(0) Thank | 接好心审稿人

4.22我们
4.23确认

(0) Thank | dark_阳光

Five experts were invited again, and four of them accepted the review. So now we have five reviewers.

(0) Thank | jj01502

4.15 小幅修订
4.15 stj

(0) Thank | dark_阳光

4.14 The status has not changed yet...

(0) Thank | jj01502

15 days

(0) Thank | dark_阳光

4.1 R1 upload
4.3 we
4.3 UR
4.3 2-4-4 rrc
4.4 3-4-4
4.10 4-4-4 rrc

(0) Thank | dark_阳光

I just started inviting 11 reviewers and only one of them accepted the review. Will I invite more later? It feels like this will be very slow.

(0) Thank | 接好心审稿人

Is it hopeful to have 11 reviewers for one paper to be accepted?

(0) Thank | 接好心审稿人

2.28 with editor
3.13 review (showing sent to 5 people, 1 person accepted)
3.23 1 person reviewed the manuscript, status changed to Required Reviews Completed
4.7 Still in this status today, still 1 person accepted and completed the review
This submission is a bit slow.

(0) Thank | jj01502

Is the time given to reviewers by this journal three weeks?

(0) Thank | accept*

Kids, you still need to invest in carbohydrates, the forever eldest brother, the neighbor IJBM has already become a roadside dog T-T.

(0) Thank | zzrfreeloop

2024.11.07 submitted
2024.11.09 under review
2024.11.30 major revision  Reviewed by 4 reviewers, 1 recommended rejection and requested additional experiments, while the other 3 had more positive feedback. Editor requested major revisions.
2025.01.05 Revision submitted  Resubmitted after conducting additional experiments as per reviewers' suggestions.
2025.01.12 accept  All reviewers unanimously agreed to accept, including the one who previously recommended rejection.

(0) Thank | Yuyuyu

This depends on the editor. Some editors are very particular and insist on the word "assumption". It is best to have the introduction as a separate paragraph. Based on the above information, we assume that the addition of vitamin B affects the synthesis and preparation of hyaluronic acid. Such a statement would suffice.

(0) Thank | 匿名投稿

A scientific hypothesis is a reasonable guess proposed by the author based on previous research results and their own thoughts, which can be experimentally verified. In terms of writing the introduction, it is just another form of expression of the shortcomings of previous research. For example, previous studies systematically researched the effects of individual components on heavy metal adsorption, but ignored the coexisting components. According to conventional writing, this meaning is translated. However, changing it to "Due to the complicated interactions between multiple constituents, Cd(II) sorption behaviors onto functionalized materials within the reaction systems containing mixed IC, OC, and HM are expected to differ from those in single components' presence (scientific hypothesis 2)" is also a scientific hypothesis. In the last paragraph of the introduction, it is written "To validate the above hypothesis, we need to do....", and this is followed up in the results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

(0) Thank | Andymin

Hello, could you please advise how to write hypotheses? The journal has requested supplementary hypothetical statements.

(0) Thank | Lucklyluckly

It took 3 months and 4 reviewers before finally being accepted.

(0) Thank | 匿名而已

Do all authors need to confirm the submission of this journal?

(0) Thank | 111旮旯

1.24we, still not submitted for review, what's going on?

(0) Thank | 是娟娟啊

The review process for the submission has been going smoothly. It has been with the editor for five days now, and we are expecting feedback by the second day. We will not be checking it until then, but we will keep you updated on the progress.

(0) Thank | Oangmo