Continuing from the last comment: this journal has JOE. The first review comments did not show who the editor was, but it was JOE who sent it to me. When I was urging the manuscript, there were two options in the system: one is to JOE, the other one is to the handing editor. I sent it to the handing editor. The efficiency of the editor is very fast. Actually, it depends on whether the reviewer is fast. My first review cycle is about two and a half months. During this period, it was changed to reviewer assigned from under review, and then changed to under review again. I guess that some reviewers did not agree to review and they found a new one, so it took some more time. After revision, it felt like a reviewer had not replied yet and thus wasted some time. The editor (Ulrica Edlund) seems to be very friendly. I personally think that the innovation of this article is very good, and the characterization is also very complete. At first, I submitted it to AMI and then CEJ, but it was rejected. Later, I changed my research topic, and I just wanted it to be accepted quickly. So, I didn’t try it in other journals, but directly submitted it to Cellulose. The editor required a major revision for the initial review, but the comments of the two reviewers were very positive. I personally feel that Cellulose still needs some innovation or a certain amount of work. The above are only timeline, experience, and personal thoughts during the submission process, for your reference only. I wish you all the best in your research.

(11) Thank | dc hu

2019.05.08 submitted; 2019.05.11 returned due to format issues; 2019.05.13 resubmitted; 2019.05.18 editor assigned； 2019.05.26 editor invited; 2019.05.28 under review; 2019.06.05 reviewer assigned; 2019.06.17 under review; 2019.08.05 Major reversion. (Two reviewers; the questions they proposed were very professional. One of the reviewers asked us to supplement two experiments. We supplemented one and explained the reason why the other one was not supplemented.) 2019.08.28 submit the revised manuscript; 2019.09.01 reviewer assigned; 2019.10.08 It had always been reviewer assigned. I felt like it’s been a long time for one month. Then I sent an email to the editor. The next day the editor replied that one reviewer’s comments had been returned to him, but there was another one hadn’t. The deadline for the other reviewers is today. Please wait a moment. 2019.10.12 review completed; 2019.10.13 editor assigned; 2019.10.15 accepted.

(11) Thank | dc hu

December 17, 2018, submitted. December 19, 2018, editor invited. December 30, 2018, editor assigned. February 4, 2019, under review. February 27, 2019, reviews completed. March 2, 2019, editor assigned. March 3, 2019, major revision. March 27, 2019, revise submitted. March 28, 2019, editor invited. March 30, 2019, editor assigned. April 6, 2019, under review. April 16, 2019, reviews completed. April 21, 2019, editor assigned. April 22, 2019, minor revisions. April 24, 2019, revise submitted. April 29, 2019, accepted.

(3) Thank | 化学师

My focus is directly related to this field, so I thought that Cellulose would be the ideal journal to submit my graduate research. There are high requirements for language and organization, as well as innovation, for publication. My manuscript went through two rounds of revisions; it was evident that the reviewers were influential scientists in the field (no doubt many of whom I cited in my manuscript). The reviewers’ comments were helpful, although some were a little harsh. My overall impression of this journal is that you must be a well-known scientist to publish – otherwise it is fairly difficult.

(11) Thank | 噬魂的小鬼

Oh, Zone 3 is down; Tiě Tiě, is the library issuing retrieval certificates based on real-time zones or the accepted zones?

(0) Thank | SCI期刊审稿人

Submission received
24 Feb 2025
Submission is under technical check
24 Feb 2025
Editorial assignment
Submission status Date
Ready for editorial assignment
25 Feb 2025
With editor
05 Mar 2025
Revision requested
05 Mar 2025
Revision received
06 Mar 2025
Submission passed technical check
07 Mar 2025
Revision requested
21 Mar 2025
Submission passed technical check
21 Mar 2025
Peer review
First reviewer(s) invited
26 Mar 2025
Reviewer(s) accepted
27 Mar 2025

(0) Thank | 高分子学习研究

If you say you can do it, you can do it. If you can't, it's okay too.

(0) Thank | 不祥

I have a question, why is there 1, 1, 2 zones in the subcategory, but three zones in the main category? This journal is still a T1 journal in the field of textiles. Now, those in the direction of textile dyeing and finishing should stop.

(0) Thank | 全勤王

The well-established journal has been downgraded to the third tier, and can't handle it anymore.

(0) Thank | SNAIL06

The same situation, hahaha, garbage journal.

(0) Thank | 低介电小虫子

I don't want to give a single star, this journal is very strange, especially with the current editor Alfred French. I had a good experience with the editor five years ago. I had three reviewers, two of whom recommended acceptance. I made serious revisions. The editor probably took a Christmas break. The revised manuscript had only one reviewer, who recommended publication after the second review. However, this editor rejected it with a very trashy reason. The editor rejected me goddamn it! I waited from November until February for this. It used to be top before, but not anymore. No wonder it has been downgraded, getting worse and worse. I hope it closes down soon.

(0) Thank | 低介电小虫子

Lightning protection, brothers. The initial review took over a month with four reviewers, and after revisions, there was a delay of over two months because one of the reviewers never responded. In the end, all three reviewers accepted the paper, but the editor inexplicably rejected it with a strange reason? What is the purpose of peer review?

(0) Thank | k3bear

Submission received
24 Feb 2025
Technical check
Submission status Date
Submission is under technical check
24 Feb 2025
Submission passed technical check
25 Feb 2025
Editorial assignment
Submission status Date
Ready for editorial assignment
25 Feb 2025

(0) Thank | 高分子学习研究

Several reviewers will be seen returning.

(0) Thank | 全勤王

The reason cannot be found at the moment.

(0) Thank | Handsome

Is there still the saying that manuscripts must meet the standard? The ones submitted at the end of the year should also be published in 2025, right?

(0) Thank | 星缘奇异

After submitting the manuscript, it was matched with an editor for review 18 days later, and underwent preliminary revisions (adding line numbers on the left side of the article). One day later, it was submitted to the editor. After waiting for 25 days without entering peer review, an email was sent to the editor to inquire about the status of the manuscript. Two days later, it was rejected due to not meeting the scope of the journal (even though similar research papers have been continuously published). It may be that the journal has reached its quota for submissions at the end of the year.

(1) Thank | Handsome

Boss, may I ask if there is any information from the reviewers in the submission system about the News about your peer review process? For example, will it be displayed if a reviewer has finished reviewing?

(0) Thank | 星缘奇异

Okay, thank you for the answer.

(0) Thank | 星缘奇异

Sometimes it may also be slow, and it depends on luck. Last year, a manuscript took about a month to be reviewed for the first time.

(0) Thank | 全勤王

I envy your efficiency. It has been over two weeks now, and I haven't received any feedback from the reviewer. I'm not sure if it's just coincidentally during the Christmas and New Year holiday.

(0) Thank | 星缘奇异

Now think about it, the more people receiving the manuscript for review, the better. This way, there will always be someone who responds quickly. Otherwise, some reviewers may be busy and take longer to respond, which will prolong the review process. It's hard to say exactly how long it will take. Sometimes there will be two reviewers for the first review, and an additional reviewer may be added for the second review.

(0) Thank | 全勤王

The peer review process took less than 2 weeks and required three reviewers. I was one of the six people who agreed to review, and after the opinions of three reviewers were received, the editor made a decision directly without waiting for the others. The decision to revise and recommend suggestions for Cellulose was made by the associate editor, and there were no issues in the end, so it was up to the editor-in-chief to decide on acceptance. I feel that the editor-in-chief will carefully review the quality of each article. This process took a bit longer, as after my article was resubmitted following the first round of revisions, the three reviewers quickly responded with their opinions. After waiting for over a month, the editor-in-chief said that a few small modifications were still needed. Once the revisions were made and resubmitted, the editor-in-chief accepted the article the very next day.

(0) Thank | 全勤王

How long have you been peer reviewing? How many people's opinions are needed for this review? I currently have three reviewers agreeing to review.

(0) Thank | 星缘奇异

Second submission, the process was quite familiar. This time it was very fast, accepted in less than 3 months, thumbs up! Thanks to the editor, thanks to the reviewers, thanks to the editor-in-chief!

(0) Thank | 全勤王