Verified Reviews - Science Advances
Note: Verified reviews are sourced from across review platforms and social media globally.

yiyi0101 2023-08-09

The interdisciplinary field of optoelectronic devices took a total of 6 years to complete (with other projects in between...). Fortunately, the acceptance process was quick, and the review time took a total of one and a half months.

The review was very professional, and the questions raised were right on point. It took me three months to supplement the data personally.

I feel that it is still good enough. Opening the first version of the article and comparing it to the final version, the quality is truly worlds apart. I have also discovered many directions for further research. I am grateful that my supervisor did not push me to publish quickly, otherwise, I might have submitted it to Advanced Science.

必中666 2023-08-04

I've been in this state for two weeks already... It's too annoying.

lidachui 2023-07-25

17.07.2023 submit
20.07.2023 with editor | under evaluation
25.07.2023 with editor | under evaluation
To be continued

ww-geo 2023-05-12

Impossible, received in just 2 months?

兔吐斯基 2023-05-12

2022.8.4 Submission
8.13 Under review
9.7 Major revision
9.27 Revised
10.17 Minor revision
Revised on the same day, accepted the next day
Very fast speed, the reviewers are very professional.

guangyouyin 2023-04-25

Indeed, they have high expectations for the review comments. My editor mentioned in the revision email, "we look for excellent and exciting." It is estimated that the reviewers will give an overall rating to the manuscript, such as giving 5 points for "excellent and exciting," 4 points for "above average," and 3 points for "average."

guangyouyin 2023-04-25

221128 Submit
221129 Under Evaluation
221230 To Review
230203 To Revision
230301 (Guessing the editor logged in)
230306 From Revision (230306 Resubmission)
230314 From Author (230314 Format change)
230315 From Author (230315 Resubmission)
230322 From Author (Probably just passed copy editor)
230323 Accept - Technical Hold (Slightly unexpected, didn't send for second review)
230329 Format change
230404 To Copyediting (Formally accepted)
230405 To External
230413 Proof
230422 Notify 230503 online
230422 Featured Image Request

ww-geo 2023-04-12

submit to journal 2022.9.1 -> Submitted to the journal on September 1, 2022
3次under evaluation -> Under evaluation, 3 times
under review 2022.10.1 -> Under review since October 1, 2022
major revision 2022.10.23 -> Major revision required on October 23, 2022
minor revision 2023.2.16 -> Minor revision required on February 16, 2023
minor revision 2023.3.30 -> Minor revision required on March 30, 2023
accept 2023.4.11 -> Accepted on April 11, 2023

中个主刊吧 2023-03-16

The main publication was confiscated, but the one SA found as a replacement had very professional reviewers.

soi 2023-03-14

Recently, I planned to submit an article, but after seeing everyone's comments, I dare not submit it anymore. I really don't like the slow pace.

缺舟一帆渡 2023-03-06

Thank you~ After the results come out, I will directly submit to another journal.

LSDK 2023-03-06

Based on experience, the editor directly rejected it, preparing to appeal hahaha.

缺舟一帆渡 2023-03-04

Just a few days after submitting, the message "Editor evaluation completed" appeared. Does that mean it's over?

Suede 2023-02-27

I can give you a reference. I appealed on 23rd February 2022, and on 3rd March 2022, I received an email confirming that my appeal was accepted by the editor.

hxcandy 2023-02-23

Excuse me, Teacher Suede, how long does it usually take for an appeal to receive a reply? We have already appealed and have only received feedback from one reviewer, which was relatively positive. We assume that they did not send our case for further examination by others...

Suede 2023-02-21

Just like me before, this journal will be rejected if there are no positive comments, and even if there is one positive and one negative comment, it will be rejected. OP should quickly come up with a way to respond to the reviewer's opinions one by one, appeal, and also request another chance with different reviewers.

hxcandy 2023-02-19

Made a mistake, not proactive enough.

hxcandy 2023-02-19

10.15 Submission
Change the date every week
11.25 Under review
11.28 Updated to review
2022.12.23 Updated to review
2023.1.8 Updated to review
2023.1.12 Updated to review
2023.1.15 Updated to review
2023.1.29 Updated to review
2023.1.31 Updated to review
2023.2.3 Updated to review
2023.2.4 Updated to review
2023.2.8 Updated to review
2023.2.18 Rejected
This journal is really strange. The rejection requirement is that the reviewer's comments are not sufficient for the funding, but the email we received only has one reviewer's comment, and that reviewer recommends the paper for publication after revision.
Sigh, we can only appeal!

ww-geo 2023-02-08

From submission to review, it takes 30 days.

ming 2023-02-03

Excuse me, how many days was the friend upstairs invited as a reviewer?

ww-geo 2023-02-02

Don't worry, I will only start to review in a month.

ming 2023-02-02

Hello everyone! I have a question to ask. I submitted on January 27, 2023. On January 28, the editor invited me. On January 29, it is under evaluation. On January 30, the reviewer was invited. After that, the deadline keeps changing every day, but the status remains as "reviewer invited". It has been four days today. Is it because I am having trouble finding reviewers?

CNS 2023-01-26

The editor is an expert in this field, and the reviewers are also very professional. After a minor revision and a major revision, the manuscript will be reviewed again (quickly), which will take 2 months to be accepted.

Suede 2023-01-01

I may also be one of the few successful appeal cases in this journal!

Suede 2023-01-01

12-Sep-22 From Revision
FR status changed 7 times
15-Oct-22 From Revision
18-Oct-22 To Review
TR status changed 9 times
8-Nov-22 To Review
14-Nov-22 TR
14-Nov-22 Under evaluation
9-Dec-22 To Revision
12-Dec-22 TR
15-Dec-22 TR
18-Dec-22 From Revision
20-Dec-22 FR
20-Dec-22 Under evaluation
21-Dec-22 Accept-Technical Hold
28-Dec-22 To copyediting
29-Dec-22 To External
The entire review process took 418 days, during which it was rejected, appealed, and faced the Shanghai pandemic, among other things. The two reviewers were very professional, with one expressing their own views on scientific issues and the other suggesting detailed supplementary experiments, which elevated the manuscript.

Suede 2023-01-01

2-Nov-21 Submited
3-Nov-21 Under evaluation
8-Nov-21 Under evaluation
8-Nov-21 Invited editor
8-Nov-21 Under evaluation
20-Nov-21 Under evaluation
24-Nov-21 To Review
(Midway changed to "To Review" 21 times)
28-Jan-22 To Review
3-Feb-22 Rejected
23-Feb-22 Appealed
2-Mar-22 To Revision
10-Apr-22 Due date extension
10-May-22 Due date extension
16-Jun-22 To Revision
9-Aug-22 To Revision

节节高 2022-12-29

This kind of top journal, it is impossible to give you the opportunity to revise if the opinion is not very good. The reason for the few revision suggestions might be that these experts are not interested in the article. It is more important to think about how to improve the quality of the manuscript...

lllshh 2022-12-21

May I ask how long it takes to receive a response for an appeal?

PJL 2022-12-16

The result is unknown.

milan23002 2022-12-13

March submission, both reviews returned with revision suggestions after one month. Because the word count exceeded the limit, two posts were made. The submission time and so on are in the previous post, so it wasn't that quick. Finally published on December 9th.

Add your recorded webinar

Do you already have a recorded webinar? Grow your audience and get more views by easily listing your recording on Peeref.

Upload Now

Create your own webinar

Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.

Create Now