Chemical Science

My article has had a difficult journey. It was rejected after being reviewed by Science, with two positive and one negative review. Later, it was not even sent for review by Nature or its sub-journals, and Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) did not even provide a reason for rejection. I feel that the decision to send for review or not solely depends on whether the editor likes it or not. It is unreliable to judge the quality of a journal solely based on whether it sends for review or not.

On August 22, 2021, I submitted the article to Chemical Science for review. On December 7, I received major revisions, with two positive and one negative review. The negative reviewer was very unpleasant and made irrelevant comments, but the editor still requested major revisions.

On February 17, 2022, one month after submitting the revised article, it was reviewed by the three reviewers again. Two of them considered it acceptable, but the negative reviewer remained negative. Therefore, the editor sought a fourth reviewer, who raised some questions. However, this reviewer seemed suspicious and suggested transferring the article to PCCP (Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics) with a score of 3.8.

On March 18, 2022, two weeks after completing the revisions, the fourth reviewer agreed to accept the article. Finally, it was accepted on the 18th.

My article is in the field of physical chemistry, while the editor specializes in organic chemistry and is completely unfamiliar with my work. It seems that the editor simply liked our work. Since this was our first submission to Chemical Science and the first revision, there should not have been any issues related to insider connections.

Submitted in mid-April, the ID was given approximately five or six days later, and an editor was assigned. About three weeks later, the reviewer's comments were received, with one reviewer giving a score of 6 and the other giving a score of 7. They provided around ten questions in total, which were deep and insightful. The overall evaluation was good, emphasizing the novelty of the viewpoints. It took about a month to revise, with one reminder received during the process, and then it was resubmitted. After about three weeks, it was accepted, and both reviewers were satisfied. It felt like the revisions made according to the reviewers' suggestions had indeed improved the paper. Two weeks later, it was published online, followed by the assignment of page numbers two weeks later. From submission to acceptance, the process took three months. As a first-time communication author without a well-known team or background, everyone can confidently and bravely submit their work. Both the editor and reviewers are highly concerned with novelty; only innovative ideas can be submitted, and only new reviewers can provide opportunities for revisions. A friend submitted a computer science paper and also received full affirmation, but it was rejected because the methods were not new enough, which felt regrettable. As the impact factor approaches 10, we hope everyone will submit and cite more, casting aside biases and increasing the chances of acceptance.