"It was an excellent experience to publish my work in Current Biotechnology. Both the EiC as well as the editorial staff responded directly to our questions and helped us a lot. The peer review process was rapid and efficient. The suggestions and remarks of the reviewers and the editorial staff helped us a lot to improve the manuscript. The journal is relatively new, and has to compete with a large number of online journals in the same field, but the dedication of the EiC and editorial staff, as well as the efficient reviewing and publishing process, will eventually make the difference. CBIOT has the potential to find a stable position (‘niche') within the number of high quality journals publishing articles in the field of biotechnology."
Dr. Gerard Muyzer
(Department of Aquatic Microbiology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystems Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
"The editorial staff and editor were great to work with. They kept us up-to-date and informed about the status of our manuscript. The peer review process was performed very efficiently and effectively. The reviewers did an excellent job of identifying gaps and asking relevant questions that improved the quality of the manuscript. We were very pleased with the quality of the reviews and the assistance of the reviewers. The journal has published overall good/high quality papers and is becoming recognized as an impactful resource for scientific thought and outcomes. Based on our experience as contributors to the journal and the quality of papers published in the journal, I would recommend to my colleagues that they strongly consider the journal for their future publications."
Dr. Milton Sommerfeld
(Arizona Center for Algae Technology and Innovation, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ, 85212)
"It was a happy experience for me to publish my manuscript in Current Biotechnology. My relationship with the editorial staff and EiC was very good. The peer review process was fast and efficient and I will certainly recommend the journal for my colleagues."
Dr. Katsuhiko Fujii
(Faculty of Agriculture, Yamaguchi University, Yoshida, Yamaguchi, 7538515, Japan)
"I felt good with Current Biotechnology on the submission, review and publishing processes. My relationship with the editorial staff and the EiC was very positive. The publishing process was quick and professional. Reviewers' suggestions were helpful to improve our manuscript. I hope this journal will be more attractive to the researchers in biotechnology."
Dr. Akira Inoue
(Graduate School of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan)
"My relationship with the editorial staff and the Editor-in-Chief was very good and the peer review process was very fast. I will definitely recommend the journal for my colleagues."
Dr. Maryline Vian
(Green Extraction Team, Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, Avignon, France)
"This was my first submission to Current Biotechnology and my relationship with the editorial staff and EiC was very positive. The peer review process was fast and efficient and reviewer's comments improved the manuscript. The overall quality and authority of the journal is good and I will certainly recommend the journal for my colleagues working in biotechnology."
Dr. Cirano J. Ulhoa
(Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Brazil)
"My relationship with the editorial staff and EiC was very positive. The whole process was conducted efficiently and fast, and the reviewer's comments improved substantially the manuscript quality. I will certainly recommend the journal for my colleagues as a source of high quality papers."
Dr. Eduardo Jacob-Lopes
(Department of Food Science and Technology, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil)
"This was my first submission to Current Biotechnology so, understandably, I was a bit apprehensive to try a new publisher. However, I was very pleased with the process and particularly the very kind and helpful interactions I had with the EiC and all of the members of the CBIOT team. The peer review process was thorough but also timely and the reviews improved the quality of the final manuscript. It is a great honour for me to have one of my papers published in this journal and I will certainly be submitting future manuscripts."
Dr. Sean M. Tibbetts
(National Research Council of Canada, Halifax, Canada)
"I really appreciate working with Current Biotechnology for the courtesy, professionalism, and the quick reply after the submission of the revised version. The peer review process was quite good; fast and efficient, as expected. The reviewers’ suggestions helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. The overall quality and authority of the journal is quite good and I will certainly recommend the journal for my colleagues"
Dr. Cinzia Forni
(Universita di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy)
"My relationship with the editorial staff, Guest Editor and EiC was very good. The peer review process was efficient and relatively fast and I think the reviewers’ suggestions helped to improve the quality of our manuscript."
Dr. Jean-Marie Frere
(CIP, Institute of Chemistry, University of Liège, Sart-Tilman B4000 Liège, Belgium)
"I found the editorial staff of Current Biotechnology friendly and helpful. I appreciate the interaction at the end when important decisions had to be made, and the editors were helpful and accommodating. The peer review process was at a very acceptable rate. Most of the reviewers’ suggestions helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. I think there is a lot of scope as the area is rapidly growing and it will be a very important journal in the field. I will certainly look into publishing with you again."
Dr. Abigail Elizur
(Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Bribie Island Research Centre, Queensland, Australia)
"The editorial staffs were very prompt and cooperative. The peer review process was really fast, particularly the decision making, and the the reviewers’ suggestions helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. I am looking forward to see Current Biotechnology coming up as a leading journal in the field of biotechnology and will certainly recommend it for my colleagues."
Dr. Nirupama Mallick
(Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India)
"It was a pleasure to cooperate with the editorial staff of Current Biotechnology. The review process was fast and acceptable. The reviewers’ comments were very helpful. They gave very professional suggestions. I am pretty sure this journal will be a high quality one and I will certainly recommend it to my colleagues."
Dr. Fu-Li Li
(Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 189 Songling Road, Qingdao 266101, China)
"The communication and information supply by the editorial staff and EiC was open, friendly, to the point, and fast. Also their help in getting the required adjustments to the figures done in an efficient way was very much appreciated. The peer review process was fast for the first review, but the response on my resubmission took longer. The reviewers’ suggestions were helpful in improving the manuscript. The overall quality and authority of the journal is good; good scientific papers in diverse fields of Biotechnology; the special issues with themes of current interest are also adding to the quality of the journal, and a reason to recommend it to colleagues."
Dr. Margot E.F. Schooneveld
(DSM Biotechnology Center, Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AX Delft, The Netherlands)
"Our relationship with the editorial staff and EiC was very lucid and satisfactory. The peer review process was fast initially and moderate further. It also might be because we specially faced a problem regarding the late review response in a case. Anyway, we queried to the editorial team and received quick response, that the required last reviewer comments were not received yet then. The reviewers’ suggestions were very helpful. We are deeply indebted to all the respected anonymous reviewers. The overall quality and authority of the journal was very satisfying. We will surely recommend the journal to our colleagues as a source of high quality papers"
Dr. Sujay Ray
(Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Kalyani, Kalyani, India)
Dr. Arundhati Banerjee
(Department of Biotechnology, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, India)
"It was a pleasure to work with the editorial staff of Current Biotechnology. In brief, the peer review process was smooth within a reasonable period of time, and the suggestions of the reviewers really helped improve the presentation and quality of the manuscript. The journal is relatively new and I like the style. I will recommend the journal to my colleagues, and hope there will be a further increasing number of publications."
Dr. Kesen Ma
(Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Canada)
"I had a great experience by publishing our paper in Current Biotechnology. Very professional attitude from the editorial staff."
Dr. Amnon Kohen
(Department of Chemistry, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA)
"Very good communication and rapid reply and assistance was received. The peer review process was quite fast and efficient. Also, the review process was very rigid which is of great comfort to authors and will help establish and increase the journal impact factor. The journal has a lot of potential for growth and I hope it will become one of the key journals in the field in the next 3-5 years."
Dr. Brett I. Pletschke
(Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Rhodes University, FPO Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa)
"The peer review process was very efficient. The comments were very helpful for improving the manuscript. All involved were very helpful and responded quickly to my questions. For these reasons, I see Current Biotechnology as a high-quality journal and will recommend it for my colleagues."
Dr. Heinrich Sticht
(Bioinformatik/Institut fur Biochemie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Fahrstr. 17, 91054, Germany)
"I have been very happy with the editorial staff and the peer review process. I will definitely recommend the journal for my colleagues."
Dr. Domenico L. Gatti
(Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, USA)
"My relationship with the editorial staff and EiC was very good and the peer review process was very fast. I will certainly recommend the journal for my colleagues."
Dr. Sylvie Rousset
(INRA, Unité de Nutrition Humaine UMR 1019, CRNH d’Auvergne, 63009 Clermont-Ferrand, France)
"Current Biotechnology provides fast and intense peer review for submitted manuscripts of diverse field without any difficulties, which facilitate rapid publications. The editorial team is accessible and very helpful throughout the publication process. The overall process was quite efficient."
Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh
(Amity Institute of Biotechnology, AMITY University Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Campus, Uttar Pradesh-226028, India)
"The peer review process was fast and although we had some discussions with one of the reviewers’, we found their objections constructive, which helped us to improve our text, making it more accessible to the scientific community. We had a very good communication with the editorial staff and guest editors. They were professional and accessible, and assisted us a lot through all the publication process. In general, we had a very good experience working with Current Biotechnology.”
Dr. Sandra Rodriguez-Perales
(Molecular Cytogenetics Group, Spanish National Cancer Centre-CNIO, Melchor Fernandez Almagro 3, 28029 Madrid, Spain)
"Current Biotechnology has a very fast review and publishing process and the staff has been very gentle and helpful."
Dr. Ayse Avci
(Sakarya University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Food Engineering, 54187, Sakarya, Turkey)
"The publishing process in Current Biotechnology has been very pleasant and the staff has been very helpful. The overall process was quite efficient."
Dr. Ronald P. de Vries
(CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands)