Ocean Engineering

The downstairs may have some misunderstandings about the early warning. OE's self-citation has always been stable and far below the early warning line. If OE is alerted, thousands of journals will be alerted. Moreover, OE's acceptance rate has always been stable. The journal's homepage can provide data for the past five years. The increase in the number of publications in the past two years is due to the continuous increase in submissions received. Last year, OE received a total of 3393 submissions, and this year it is estimated that nearly 5000 submissions will be received. This means that OE will reject more than 3000 papers this year. In comparison, APOR received a total of 1239 submissions last year, and MS received a total of 488 submissions. The increase in OE's publication volume corresponds to the increasing research demand and numerous research directions in the field of ocean engineering. Counting the number of SCI journals in the field of ocean engineering, and considering the increasing interdisciplinary research in recent years, it can be seen that many interdisciplinary studies are being submitted. OE, as the flagship journal of the ocean engineering discipline, covers almost all research directions related to ocean engineering in its scope. In comparison, the scopes of MS and APOR are obviously narrower, but these two journals are also good. I am currently overseas and have just arrived. I have no personal interests. I am a senior editorial member of OE and understand the development direction, strategies, and current situation of some journals. Please note that our group does not have many publications in OE. In order to avoid being accused of favoritism, please don't only focus on the publication volume and ignore the more than 3000 papers that were rejected behind it.

Overall, it is a top journal in the field. Note that the quality of a journal should not be judged based on the ranking of the Chinese Academy of Sciences; it should be evaluated based on its influence among researchers worldwide. The revisions were also normal and were done by two distinguished professors in the field.

However, there are still some drawbacks, as exemplified by this submission:
1. Long review time
The slow review process is primarily the fault of the reviewers. If we have to find a reason related to the journal's editorial board, it can only be that the editors did not push hard enough. In our field, OE is known for its slow review process. Another doctoral student of the professor submitted an article, and it took one year for the review, only to be rejected in the end.
2. Based on Word
Another colleague had previously submitted to OE. He submitted in LaTeX, but was asked to submit in Word. After informing them that he did not have Word, the typing team actually copied the content into Word and pasted it into Elsevier's scheduling system. This not only took a long time, but also resulted in a poor publication outcome! I just submitted in LaTeX myself, so I'm not sure what will happen next.