CORROSION REVIEWS
Note: The following journal information is for reference only. Please check the journal website for updated information prior to submission.
Journal Title
CORROSION REVIEWS
CORROS REV
ISSN / eISSN
0334-6005 / 2191-0316
Aims and Scope
Corrosion Reviews is an international bimonthly journal devoted to critical reviews and, to a lesser extent, outstanding original articles that are key to advancing the understanding and application of corrosion science and engineering in the service of society. Papers may be of a theoretical, experimental or practical nature, provided that they make a significant contribution to knowledge in the field.
Subject Area
ELECTROCHEMISTRY
METALLURGY & METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING
MATERIALS SCIENCE, COATINGS & FILMS
CiteScore
5.70
View Trend
CiteScore Ranking
| Category | Quartile | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical Engineering - General Chemical Engineering | Q2 | #77/272 |
| Chemical Engineering - General Chemistry | Q2 | #122/407 |
| Chemical Engineering - General Materials Science | Q2 | #148/453 |
Web of Science Core Collection
| Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) | Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) |
|---|---|
| Indexed | - |
| Category (Journal Citation Reports 2023) | Quartile |
|---|---|
| ELECTROCHEMISTRY - SCIE | Q3 |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE, COATINGS & FILMS - SCIE | Q2 |
| METALLURGY & METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING - SCIE | Q2 |
H-index
26
Country/Area of Publication
ENGLAND
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Publication Frequency
Quarterly
Annual Article Volume
40
Open Access
NO
Contact
FREUND PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD, PO BOX 35010, TEL AVIV, ISRAEL, 61350
Verified Reviews
Major revision (01-Mar-2021)
Reject with possible resubmission (26-May-2021)
1. The time taken by the editor may exceed that of the reviewers.
2. There were two reviewers, one provided some minor issues, while the other reviewer, who seemed to be from a different era, wrote a bunch of problems by hand, leading to a major revision suggested by the editor.
3. After completing the major revision, one reviewer suggested accepting the paper directly, but the ancient reviewer claimed there were still issues without specifying them. In the end, the editor rejected or suggested resubmission.
What frustrated me the most is that the ancient reviewer wrote down all the problems throughout the paper, but the English was completely incomprehensible. I had to guess and interpret on my own, and some of the problems were also unrelated to the field. My paper is around 20 pages long, and it took me more than 20 days to extract and address each problem handwritten by the ancient reviewer, replying point by point. The response alone ended up being over 20 pages. However, it was all in vain as the ancient reviewer didn't acknowledge it and dismissed me with a few simple words. I'm frustrated, I give up.
Create your own webinar
Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.
Create NowAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started