江枫晚 2023-07-03

Small circles are very serious, and the professional level of the arranged reviewers is not as good as OE.

304 2023-05-20

12.20 submission
Continuously searching for reviewers, but unable to find any.
4.15 Major revision, need to explain new theoretical derivation formulas and provide additional experiments. Two expert reviewers agree to accept.
5.15 Return, editor review.
5.20 Accepted.
The process is a bit long, not recommended if you are in a hurry to graduate.

304 2023-04-26

Does "Major Revisions Required" mean that the journal requires extensive revisions?
And what does "Reviewer Rating Completed" mean?
Thank you for your help in answering.

老和尚说我帅 2022-12-29

Didn't expect it to be accepted, and encountered a relatively nice editor. The specific submission process:
6.1 Submitted.
6.8 Showed that the editor sent it for review, but couldn't find a reviewer. Finally, found 8 reviewers, but only 2 were willing to review.
8.1 Received a major revision decision. Both reviewers' comments were troublesome, requiring additional data from theory, simulation, and experiments. Basically had to redo everything, took two whole months to revise.
10.1 Finished the revision and submitted a response to the reviewer's suggestions.
10.22 Received the acceptance decision.
Some experiences:
1. It seems that the editor saw a completely different version of our revision and didn't send it to the two reviewers. Otherwise, we should have received feedback from them.
2. Personally, I feel that Optica doesn't require as much innovation, but demands a huge amount of data. It's better to supplement all possible data before submission, which increases the chances of being reviewed and accepted.
3. The review process is quite long, taking a total of 6 and a half months (mainly due to finding reviewers and revising the article). If the editor sends it for review quickly, the chances of acceptance are usually high.
4. I don't know the submission order of others. Personally, I think when submitting to Optica, should we try Light first?

xinhhh 2022-12-19

Did the original poster submit for review?

邹邹是我 2022-11-21

Relatively speaking, the physical requirements of PRL are higher than Optica, while NC leans more towards micro and nano optics. For physics like ours that doesn't have such a profound traditional optical direction, it is quite difficult to submit to PRL and NC. Optica is the best choice, as long as the innovation is sufficient, there is a chance. After a 10-day editor review, it takes about a month and a half to receive the revision comments, and the acceptance is received on the same day as the upload after the modifications.

光电小子gogogo 2022-10-04

The OP's submission for review is really timely, I envy it.

光电小子gogogo 2022-10-04

The journal states that the Editorial Review will be completed within 7 working days, but in reality, it seems to take forever. Why is it so slow?

老和尚说我帅 2022-08-10

What is the probability of being rejected after the review of optica? I didn't expect that a small job could be reviewed. It was submitted on August 1st and reviewed on August 5th.

老和尚说我帅 2022-08-10

Can I ask, how likely is it for the post to be rejected after submission? There is a small job that I'm planning to submit to Optica, and I didn't expect it to be sent for review, but it was sent for review within 5 days by the editor, and I'm quite nervous.

Zhihan666 2022-05-04

It is difficult to say the specific situation, but generally, peer review takes about one and a half to two months after submission for review.

科研精神小伙 2022-04-28

How long does the main post Editorial Review take?

科研精神小伙 2022-04-28

It has been 25 days, I really want to switch journals.

Zhihan666 2022-04-27

As an optical engineer, Optica holds great value and is indeed quite difficult to develop. The requirements for innovation are very high, and I hope it can continue to improve.

Iliujm 2021-10-23

6.22, submission, the editor reviewed it quickly.
6.29, sent for peer review. We invited 6 reviewers, 3 agreed, and 3 were unavailable. Originally, the review period was one month. One person delayed it for another month.
8.30, received review comments. Two were positive, one was very negative.
One suggested direct publication, while another suggested modifying some descriptions regarding novelty. However, the third reviewer was extremely negative, considering our article worthless and proposing alternative methods, which he believed to be correct, as well as suggesting additional experiments (which we had actually conducted but he overlooked). The editor gave us two weeks.
Due to the excessively negative feedback from the third reviewer, we directly responded. We explained in detail that the methods he suggested were fundamentally impractical and pointed out that the experiments he requested had already been included in the supplemental materials.
9.13, resubmitted the modified version. In reality, we only made a few word changes and added a few citations.
9.14, sent back to the reviewers, waited for another two weeks.
9.30, received feedback. Two reviewers accepted it directly, but the third still had concerns. One of the positive reviewers even advocated for us in their comments. Finally, the editor provided a suggestion, asking us to conduct two additional experiments and gave us one week. We performed the experiments as suggested by the editor and sent it back within one week.
10.7, resubmitted again, and it was immediately accepted.
10.13, notified that it enters the subsequent production process.

RICKKKK 2021-07-01

Congratulations, congratulations, you've reached over 10!