I submitted to AMB on January 18. The reviewers were all recommended by the editor (I did not list any recommended reviewers myself). I received reviews extremely quickly – by January 29 – from all reviewers. Most of the reviews were positive! I revised my paper according to the reviewer’s comments and it was accepted on Feb 6. The review speed is great – far beyond my expectations. Once my paper was accepted, I was told that the proof would take 3-4 weeks. I highly recommend this journal.

(2) Thank | zhanyulian@hotmail.com

The first SCI, the AMB, the reviewer is very nice, the editor is very responsible, in short, it feels good!

(0) Thank | 猪猪读博士

The draft of No. 31, No. 11.7 was submitted for review. Until now, there was no news on January 14, 2019. It was almost two and a half months. What is the situation? Now this journalIs it so slow?

(0) Thank | 超级小学渣

How can I keep commenting??The first time to send EST, unreviewed directly refused, and changed to AEM, reviewer, small Japanese editor Hideaki Nojiri declined. tampering with AMB 9.13 contribution 10.8 minor repair 10.23 repaired 10.27 received.The speed of review is fast. I feel a little water.

(2) Thank | DundeeKang

投ES

(0) Thank | DundeeKang

Before submiting ES

(1) Thank | DundeeKang

5.4 submitted to the journal;5.4 sent back to author Change the format, results and discussion need to be divided into two parts, no conclusions;5.6 Submission5.8 with editor5.18 under review6.12 major revision Overhaul, both reviewers agree that the content is interested, each person submits five comments, and needs to complete four application experiments (most have been done), the data needs statistical analysis;6.27revised manuscript submitted No summary drawing is required, and no more than 10 charts are required in the text, and the extra data is placed in the supplementary file.6.28 with editor7.3 under review7.25 accept This time is quite long, only one reviewer replied.After two and a half months, it was not easy, and I was very fortunate. The first time I wrote an article, I was in the first place.

(2) Thank | Jingxia_Mei@163.com

The reviewer is very responsible and the review is coming to an end.Overhaul once, minor repairs, it is directly acceptd.Ha ha..Let's share it!725554986

(0) Thank | 707145297@qq.com

2018.2.1 Submitted
         2.2 submitted QC
         2.5 with editor
         2.11 under review
      
         4.7 minor revision
         4.26 revised manuscript submitted
         4.28 decision in process
         4.29 accept

(2) Thank | 12549277@qq.com

2017.12.6 submitted to journal;12.7 with editor;12.19 under review;2017.1.20 major revision;2.15 submitted to journal;2.17 major revision;2.24 submitted to journal;2.26 with editor;3.4 minor revision;3.6 accept.CEJ, STOEN, and Chemosphere have been rejected by the editors, and they have been transferred to AMB, two reviewers, and 33 opinions in the first instance. One of them is a tutor of foreign cooperation, and 18 editors have revised opinions. The amendments are detailed in detail.The draft speed is amazing, the format requirements are strict, and every comment of the reviewer should be taken care of. The individual feels that the article is not very innovative.

(4) Thank | Spillar

Yours is also contributing a month, what dynamics are there?

(0) Thank | houningkewanderful@163.com

I also submitted a manuscript for a month, and I am still in the editor's hands.

(1) Thank | houningkewanderful@163.com

with editor A month soon, what stuff

(3) Thank | keyan008

2016.5.2 Submission2016.5.13 Edit Rejection

(1) Thank | 妮蔚莲

Give everyone my contribution history for reference.8.4 submission;8.7 requires uploading sequence, deadline for one month;9.10 In the middle of the delay, write a letter to the editor, request extension of time;9.11 The Chief Editor replied and agreed to give it two weeks;9.27 submit the sequence;10.3 submitted to journal;10.10 under review;10.30-1.15 Requires reviewers for review, recommended 3 times before and after, 7 or so each time, all require Europe and America;2.7 overhaul, deadline 3.17;3.14 write to the editor in chief, requesting a delay in the deadline;3.15 No reply, urgent!3.16 The Chief Editor agrees to give two weeks of worship;3.31 submit revision;4.5 Accept.In general, I feel that the editor of AMB is a lot more nice than several other journals, but this article is really entangled, the twists and turns

(1) Thank | Anonymous

2月4日稿On February 7th, minor repairs will upload the sequencing data.February 10 upload sequenceFebruary 12 with editorFebruary 15 under reviewOn February 27th, the editor wrote a letter saying that no reviewers could be found (I chose the authors of the past one or two years)Has been under reviewIt doesn't look too fast..急啊

(0) Thank | wu

The first AMB is still easy this year's IF: 3.425, soared tooFast, it is estimated that it is more difficult to contribute later.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Reviewing speed is fast!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

This is the third AMB of the ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Very fast ~ haha ​​~

(1) Thank | Anonymous

The speed is very fast, I thought it was quite promising, but it was indeed a reviewer who was a little amateur, negatingThe application value of my article.In fact, he really does not understand my business. If you really do this, you must know that the result I got is already good.But forget it, I don't want to make any complaints. Now I am going to switch to another journal, but I still thank the editors. The speed is really fast.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The estimated period for reviewers is one month, so under review for more than one month + one week can be drafted.This is my reminder letter: AMAB-D-12-****** / Re: Enquiry of review process

(0) Thank | Anonymous

I would like to ask, my article is received on April 24th.Why are you now in October and have not been published yet?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

2 At the end of the month, the manuscript was very depressed, and it was a waste of a month.In May, return to the review comments.The opinions of the two reviewers were good, and the other one was amateur, and the result was rejected.However, the editor gave the opportunity to re-attend.On August 22, the data was added and the reviewer's RESPONSE was re-submited, and the repair was given 20 days later.Received after two days of minor repairs.This journal has a relatively high format requirement for the article (after all, it is a German journal), the results and discussion must be written separately, and there must be no independent conclusion. Also, we should try not to find China when we are looking for reviewers (including Taiwan).), and must have a few European and American.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

7.6Submission, 7.13 Under review, 7.25 status change is still Under review.No. 9.21 results.2 reviewers: one raised a lot of comments, details.Another objection directly to the paper research content, that the experimental part of the data is incomplete and needs to be supplemented.After editing the comprehensive opinions, they are directly involved.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

6 At the end of the month, the editor directly called back, saying that the wild strain must provide the number of the public deposit. After the revision, it was re-submited in early July. With the editor, it will be under review for almost 10 days, one month later.At the end of the manuscript, it took another week to return to the comments. The two reviewers had a harsh opinion, lacked new ideas, and the experimental part was not complete. One was not very picky. The editor decided to reject the draft, but allowed the supplementary experiment to be greatly revised.hard pitch.I feel that AMB is currently submiting too many people. The results of the review that may have been overhauled in the past are now rejected directly by the editor. I just don't object to your re-entry, and the shelves are getting bigger and bigger...

(0) Thank | Anonymous