International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

First review, 20 days, rejection with encouragement to resubmit, three reviewers, two positive, one negative. The negative reviewer provided over 2000 words of criticism, but clearly indicated areas for improvement. Make substantial revisions and resubmit.

Second review, 21 days, rejection, same three reviewers. One of the positive reviewers found the modifications inadequate, while the negative reviewer was slightly satisfied but still felt it wasn't good enough. The academic editor encouraged thorough revisions and resubmission. After communicating with the assistant editor, resubmission is possible. Conduct additional experiments, make strong revisions, polish, and resubmit.

Third review, 31 days, minor revisions, two additional reviewers. It seems that the originally negative reviewer did not review this time. All four reviewers are relatively positive. Make substantial revisions and resubmit.

Accepted the next day upon submission, and the efficiency of the editorial department soared.
Received at 10:00, APC at 12:00, proof feedback at 15:00, proof submission at 19:00, online at 22:00.

I was amazed after seeing the email records from the editorial department the next morning.

Impressions:
1. Some reviewers can be very strict. Although their comments may make you doubt your life choices, they positively promote the clarity of ideas and adherence to standards.
2. It is necessary to diligently incorporate the reviewers' opinions and make the necessary changes and references as suggested.
3. The editorial department has a strong sense of service. It is important to promptly communicate uncertainties with the assistant editor. Having a good assistant editor can genuinely and sincerely help you.

22 years and 11 months after submitting to the General Environment, it went through three months of review. There were two reviewers who gave a total of forty to fifty comments, and the editor requested a resubmission. Worried about the delay, I decided to submit to a faster journal and couldn't wait any longer. After making revisions according to the reviewers' comments, I started the submission process.

Received: 27 January 2023 / Received the review comments on the 8th. There were two foreign reviewers: one asked for additional experimental details and an additional section on other discussions (although it didn't seem relevant to the main theme of the article); the other reviewer praised the article but asked for two more experimental details. I was given ten days to complete the revisions. Submitted on the eighth day.

Revised: 16 February 2023 /

Accepted: 17 February 2023 / The next morning, the reviewers returned their comments and suggested acceptance. Then, the editor made the decision. Accepted.

Published: 20 February 2023 / After proofreading and paying the fees, it was quickly published online.

In summary, the entire process was very fast. I felt the editor was very efficient, even working overtime on weekends and evenings. Although I was anxious and wanted it to be done quickly, I also felt pushed by the editor throughout the process. However, this journal doesn't have a good reputation, so it can only be used for graduation purposes. The preparations for submission are still worth considering. Also, there is a publication fee of 2500 Swiss Francs. It ultimately depends on individual choices, and everyone has their own opinions.