Under review as of 2023/11/20. Praying for good outcomes. ?

(0) Thank | 双人鱼

Submitted on June 30, 2023, awaiting results.

(0) Thank | xiaoleeya

18-Sep-2020 Submit
11-Nov-2020 Reject, encourage to resubmit
14-Dec-2021 Reconsider after revision
28-Feb-2022 Minor Revision
29-Mar-2022 Accept
Before submission, inquire about acceptance intention, interested parties will receive a response within 2 days. After submission, the reviewer (a deputy editor) was very professional and provided many good suggestions when encouraging resubmission.

(7) Thank | 半口青椒

1. Firstly submitted (22-Oct-2020)
2. Reject, encourage to resubmit (18-Feb-2021)
3. Minor Revision (30-Sep-2021)
4. Accept (01-Nov-2021)

Finally accepted, the process was too long, mainly due to one reviewer who kept delaying until the end. Still, I am very grateful to MER for providing the opportunity to accept! Amitabha

(3) Thank | lvye2021

It has been two weeks and still no news on the awaiting ME decision.

(0) Thank | 20210830

SUBMITTED 22-Oct-2020
DECISIONED Reject, encourage to resubmit (18-Feb-2021)
RESUBMITTED 07-Jun-2021

During the long wait, my article spent nearly 4 months in the initial review, and I have been waiting for news since resubmission (one reviewer has not responded). 
I hope friends who have experience submitting to this journal can help me answer some questions.
Hopefully there will be a result, but the result is still unknown. It's just that the review time is too long, a long agony~~~

(0) Thank | lvye2021

After two weeks of submission, it entered "Under Review". Three days later, it changed to "Awaiting ME decision". Does this mean it will be rejected?

(0) Thank | Hobart2021

First round submission:
2020
07-07 Submit
08-01 Under Review
08-06 Awaiting reviewer scoring
08-25 Awaiting ED recommendation
08-25 Awaiting ME Decision
08-26 Reject, encourage to resubmit

Resubmission:
2020
12-01 Submit / Under review
12-16 Awaiting ME decision
12-18 Reconsider after revision

Revision:
2021
01-17 Submit
01-22 Under review
02-05 Awaiting reviewer scoring
02-07 Awaiting ED recommendation
02-25 Awaiting ME Decision
02-25 Accept

(81) Thank | Lakeman

Does "Under review" mean that the manuscript has passed the editor's evaluation and entered the review stage? Thank you. kggz published on 2017-06-17 Acceptance rate: about 50% Review time: about 6 months SCI (2015): 5.298 SCI (2014): 3.712 This journal is good. The quality of the manuscripts has been improving in recent years. It has great potential. However, the submission process for this journal is a bit slow. If you are not in a hurry to graduate, you can give it a try!

(0) Thank | 天山鑫哲

Making a fortune! Published an article last year, and this year it broke through 6 points. Dear friends, you also need to have such insight

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

submitted	decisioned29-dec-2016	04-jan-2017 (accept )11-dec-2016	19-dec-2016 (minor revision )22-oct-2016	15-nov-2016 (reconsider after revision)26-jun-2016	08-aug-2016 (reject, encourage to resubmit

(0) Thank | 华清雪晴

SUBMITTED DECISIONED29-Dec-2016 04-Jan-2017 (Accept )11-Dec-2016 19-Dec-2016 (Minor Revision )22-Oct-2016 15-Nov-2016 (Reconsider after revision)26-Jun-2016 08-Aug-2016 (Reject, encourage to resubmit)

(0) Thank | JY

Review speed: 6.0 | Submission acceptance rate: 50.0
Experience sharing: This journal is good, the quality of submissions has been improving in recent years, and it has great potential. However, the journal's submission process is a bit slow, so if you are not in a hurry to graduate, you can give it a try!

(0) Thank | Eunice Abraham

Review Speed: 6.0 | Submission Acceptance Rate: 50.0
Experience Sharing: This journal is good, and the quality of submissions has been improving steadily this year, showing great potential. However, the journal's review process is slow. If you are not in a hurry to graduate, you can give it a try

(0) Thank | Eunice Abraham

Submitted for two months, the editor informed me that my submission did not pass. The feedback received was constructive. I believe that if I were to submit to this journal again, I need to strengthen the section on ecological applications in my discussion

(0) Thank | 晓易小公主

selectd for two months,The editor informed that it did not pass.The feedback comments returned are more pertinent.Personally think that if you want to select for the journal, the discussion must strengthen the part of the ecological application.

(1) Thank | ryan

Trashy magazine. The editor-in-chief tried many tricks to increase the impact factor. Catch and refuse to submit

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

According to my calculations, the IF in 2014 will drop to between 5.3 and 5.5

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 2.0 | Submission hit rate: 50.0 Experience sharing: When I first started paying attention to this journal, the impact factor was only around 3-4. I thought it was a relatively average journal, with articles of moderate quality. During my PhD, I submitted an article on group tagging development to this journal, with 4 reviewers, two agreeing to accept it, and the other two suggesting rejection and revision. To be honest, I think the reviewer who suggested revisions was an expert in this field. Our article was on tagging development, but it mainly focused on establishing and improving development methods. Looking back, it was quite amateurish. It was my first time writing a SCI article, so I lacked experience. The resubmission deadline was one year. However, due to graduation, job searching, and other delays, I didn't resubmit it. Later, I found that the journal's impact factor had risen to over 7. As the one-year deadline approached, along with my original supervisor and another senior, we earnestly revised the original article, focusing on tagging development, adding a lot of data and relevant analysis, and essentially rewriting the paper based on the reviewers' feedback. Submitted on January 14, external review chosen on January 27, external review expert confirmed on February 13. It wasn't until March 13 that a decision was reached: minor revisions. In addition to the original reviewers, a new reviewer was added, and the feedback this time was generally fair. Only one reviewer may not have been an expert in this field, repeatedly asking us to explain specific terms. The opinions of the others were generally fair. Despite being minor revisions, some issues were quite professional, and I felt that the reviewers and editors were highly competent. After careful revisions, it was resubmitted on April 11. A decision was received on April 28, another minor revision, which was relatively simple, with only a few small issues raised by the editor. However, it involved a fundamental definition, so after deliberating for several days, it was resubmitted on May 9. The day after submission, on May 10, I received an email from the corresponding author stating that it had been accepted! Overall, I feel that the quality of this journal has been consistently improving this year, with the editors and reviewers becoming more professional. I hope that this journal continues to improve!

(0) Thank | Lesley Walpole

2012 2011 year 2010 year 2009 year IF: 7.432 3.062 1.631 1.251

(0) Thank | Anonymous

2012年度 2011年度 2010年度 2009年度 if: 7.432 3.062 1.631 1.251

(0) Thank | 般若北晶

Oh? Really? Will this magazine be warned too? Is there evidence downstairs? I haven't found any at least: http://www.17winner.com/newsdetails.aspx?nid=1379

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

Pretty trashy magazine, got a warning this year and might be kicked out next year, so be careful

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

The impact factor of IF in 2013 actually exceeded 7, higher than ME, which seems a bit unreliable. The quality of papers in these two years has significantly improved, but it shouldn't exceed ME

(0) Thank | 凌霄高洁

Review speed: 3.0
Experience sharing: I said it will rise, it will definitely rise

(0) Thank | 龙鳞景岩