Cell Reports Physical Science
Note: The following journal information is for reference only. Please check the journal website for updated information prior to submission.
Journal Title
Cell Reports Physical Science
ISSN / eISSN
2666-3864 / 2666-3864
Subject Area
CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
CiteScore
7.60
View Trend
CiteScore Ranking
Category | Quartile | Rank |
---|---|---|
Engineering - General Engineering | Q1 | #31/302 |
Engineering - General Physics and Astronomy | Q1 | #33/240 |
Engineering - General Chemistry | Q1 | #73/407 |
Engineering - General Energy | Q1 | #15/71 |
Engineering - General Materials Science | Q1 | #95/453 |
Web of Science Core Collection
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) | Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) |
---|---|
Indexed | - |
Category (Journal Citation Reports 2023) | Quartile |
---|---|
CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE | Q1 |
ENERGY & FUELS - SCIE | Q1 |
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE | Q1 |
PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE | Q1 |
Country/Area of Publication
United States
Publisher
Elsevier
Annual Article Volume
423
Open Access
YES
Verified Reviews
Regarding my submission, I initially submitted to Joule and went through two revisions before it was rejected. The editor of Cell Reports Physical Science sent me an email invitation to transfer my submission, expressing interest in the content of my paper and promising it would be 100% free. They also mentioned that the paper could be pre-accepted or at most sent back to one reviewer for a second review. However, the paper was directly sent back to the original three reviewers. After waiting for two months, the paper was accepted by the other reviewers, but one reviewer still had concerns and the editor rejected it directly.
Perhaps many people would think this is normal. I now realize that I was quite out of control at the time and felt pigeonholed. I couldn't help but react in the moment. I still need to continue cultivating my own mentality.
Rejected by Matter, it is suggested to submit to CRPS.
8.16 Transferred for submission.
9.21 Returned for major revisions, with four reviewers, three provided more positive feedback, and one had more negative feedback.
10.13 Revised and returned, with one round of re-review, during which the status alternated between "under review" and "reviewers complete."
11.9 Received feedback (pre-acceptance), the fourth reviewer rejected it, while the first three agreed to accept it. After considering the editor's opinion, it was given a pre-acceptance, but the issues raised by the fourth reviewer still need to be addressed. After formatting, it was returned on 11.17.
11.23 Accepted.
Create your own webinar
Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.
Create NowBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started