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

2025-08-7 Accept

请提供更多上下文，以便更准确地翻译。

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

2025-07-31 UR (1 person completed; invited 3 original reviewers, 2 accepted the invitation to review)

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

2025-07-30 (7:12 AM) Under Review (Invitation sent to 3 reviewers, 1 reviewer accepted)

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

More than two papers were accepted for review, and more reviews are still to come.

(0) Thank | kefeng

If more than two reviewers accept the invitation, the review will continue.

(0) Thank | kefeng

2025-07-29 (12:38PM) With Editor

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

At least one reviewer is required to accept.

(0) Thank | hyc

2025-07-28 Revision Submitted to Journal (17 comments, with a 20-page response letter)

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

April 30th 3.47 AM Submission
April 30th 11.57 AM with editor
May 3rd 3.04 PM with editor
May 10th Two reviewers accepted RRC
May 20th Two major revisions editor major revisions
June 13th Return for revisions
June 17th Editor handling reviewers accepted, accepted

(0) Thank | solorway

I am also like this now, may I ask how your manuscript is doing? Will it be accepted directly after major revisions?

(0) Thank | biener

7.12 RRC
7.13 Major
Fast speed~

(0) Thank | little_foo

2025-07-01 Major Revisions for reconsideration (Reviewed by 3 individuals, 2 minor revisions and 1 major revision)

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

2025-7-1 Major Revisions for reconsideration (2 minor revisions, 1 major revision)

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

After 2 years, I submitted to CP again.
2025.6.24 Submitted (ID4500+)
2025.6.30 Under Review (10+, accepted 2)

(0) Thank | little_foo

Submission to STJ on February 14, 2025.
Returned for format modification and revision of assumptions regarding the performance of polysaccharides on February 18, 2025.
UR on March 14, previously WE, sent a reminder letter.
RRC on April 14, 2025.
Major Revision on April 17, 2025 (sent a reminder letter, with 5 reviewers asking 60 questions, requiring additional experiments, 3 major revisions, and 2 rejections. Extension requested for 2 weeks, with a return time of 1 month).
Returned to STJ on May 31, 2025.
UR on June 2, 2025.
RRC on June 20 (reminder letter, sent to four reviewers for second review, two accepted).
Minor Revision on June 22 (both reviewers accepted, including the one who had previously rejected).
Minor Revision returned to WE on June 24.
Acceptance on June 27 (reminder letter).
The submission process required four reminders, each time advancing to the next stage immediately. The process lasted for 4 and a half months. Best wishes to everyone for a successful outcome!

(0) Thank | 宇燮

In recent years, peer review has become increasingly challenging, with each submission being reviewed by five or more reviewers, resulting in a plethora of recommendations.

(0) Thank | duihiauhfui

2025-06-26 UR (2 people completed; invited 4 people, 3 people accepted for review)

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

Just want to ask how many reviewers are required for the CP? Two reviewers have reviewed and recommended revisions, but it was ultimately rejected.

(0) Thank | hzxdb

2025-06-19 UR (1 person completed; invited 4 people, 3 accepted for review)

(0) Thank | 有梦想谁都了不起之LG

Sent Back to Author Format Error Returned

(0) Thank | liqqwer--

Please translate the following paragraph into English: 6-17 SJ

(0) Thank | liqqwer--