Nanophotonics

Received the reviewer's comments approximately two weeks after submission. Both reviewers recommended major revisions, although one of them mainly focused on minor formatting changes. The editor followed the recommendation for major revisions. After about 10 days, the revised manuscript was sent back with suggestions for further modifications. Waited for approximately 20 days and received a rejection decision. One of the reviewers suddenly raised some formula-related questions and attempted to calculate the formulas themselves. Ironically, this reviewer's calculations were all incorrect. However, the editor still decided to reject the manuscript. It is truly frustrating to encounter such reviewers during the second round of review. The academic circle sometimes feels like the entertainment industry, and it is really unfortunate to come across such reviewers. Nevertheless, the editor still decided to reject the manuscript. Anonymity can be a good thing when it comes to reviewers. It is disheartening to see the late nights and hard work put into revising the paper go to waste.

I have submitted two articles, and the peer review process was quite fast. There were two to three reviewers, and it took no more than two months from submission to final decision. Although this journal has a relatively high impact factor, there are several drawbacks. Firstly, it is facing a downgrade in its classification next year. Secondly, Chinese researchers contribute to half of the publication volume. Thirdly, the quality of the articles is somewhat inconsistent. Fourthly, the surge in publication volume has led to a stagnation in the impact factor. Lastly, the publication fee is slightly expensive.