APPLIED ENERGY

At this point, I felt very uneasy. My approach is relatively new, and if it is accepted, a commonly used method in the current literature may become obsolete. Therefore, if my article is published, it may harm the interests of researchers who are currently using this old method to solve problems or have recently published articles using this old method (in terms of timeliness, innovation, citations, etc.). After five months, my supervisor sent an email inquiring about the situation. The editor replied that they would follow up. Just a few days later, we received the result: rejection. It took over five months with only two reviewers. The first reviewer had a few specific professional opinions but did not provide a review. The second reviewer had only two brief comments: 1. This article lacks novelty and does not meet the standards of this prestigious journal. 2. The experimental description by the author is insufficient. That's it. I find it amusing. The specific details of what happened behind closed doors are all just my speculation, so everyone can judge for themselves.

In summary, based on this experience, I have two pieces of advice for everyone: 1. Remember to post a preprint before submitting to this journal (otherwise, you might end up being accused of plagiarism); 2. Normally, results are expected within 1-2 months. If it exceeds 3 months, prepare yourself for rejection. Also, make an early inquiry so that even if rejected, you can retrieve your manuscript sooner and avoid delaying your own work's effectiveness.

Oh, regarding the identity of the editor, zyr... That's all I can say. Be cautious, everyone. I do not recommend submitting relatively new and innovative work to this journal.

I have had several experiences submitting articles to Applied Energy (AE). Originally, I did not intend to give any evaluations, but recently, by chance, I discovered something that I want everyone to be aware of.

Previously, I submitted an article to AE, and after three months of review, it was rejected, with the comments of two reviewers returned to me. One reviewer had provided good feedback and numerous suggestions. However, the other reviewer directly used pretexts to reject the article, providing irrelevant and trashy comments. So, I wrote an appeal, but the reply I received was, "The decision of the editor-in-chief is final, and no appeals or rebuttals will be accepted."

Now for the more astonishing part: some time later, at a conference, I met a colleague of my senior, and after chatting, I found out that he was one of the reviewers for my article. He confidently told me that he had given me minor revisions, and after seeing the reviewer comments I received, he discovered that the AE editorial board had secretly added content after his review! He had given me suggestions for minor revisions, but the editor added a suggestion after his review to reject the article and have it resubmitted as a new article after major revisions! Many people have also noticed the chaotic management of AE's editorial department this year, but I won't go into detail about that. This is the first time I have encountered the manipulation of falsifying reviewer comments. From now on, I will submit to Energy Conversion and Management (ECM). If I am spreading rumors, then I will never be able to publish in SCI journals in my lifetime.