Nutrients

Profile - Forum · Metrics · Reviews

After two rounds of reviews and many requests the manuscript was rejected based on sample number:( The study is interesting. Unfortunately, it does not have a sufficient number of participants in the study that allows validation of the authors' thesis from the results.) This is very unrespectful of the researcher time, as it is a straightforward point that should have been communicated immediately (not after two rounds of reviews and requests). Requests are very unclear, and one of the reviewers claims are wrong and the language used was rude. I find it wrong on the editor to give it value.

The speed is quite fast 9.30 Submission 12.2 Overhaul 12.16 Amendment 12.23 Minor repairs 12.26 Proof

The manuscript was rejected within one day.

From submission to receipt, it takes 20 days, super fast~~hahaha~~

Overall, very efficient team Contributions: 7.25 Overhaul: 8.3 Revision: 8.13 Receive: 8.27 Proof: 8.28 Publication: 9.1 Two reviewers, one of them asked some small questions about grammar, and the other reviewer was very professional, with clear requirements for experimental design, data statistical analysis, experimental operation and other details, and provided a lot of comments. , With the suggestions of reviewers, the article has improved a lot. Due to the complexity of the experimental design, previous submissions have been rejected. The reviewers did not have the patience to look at the overall experimental design. Fortunately, I met a "good person" here and gave a lot of constructive comments patiently. , Very professional and accommodating. My debut work, published on the first day of school, nutrients gave me the courage to continue, thank you!