Dr. Yong 2022-07-01

The article format has its own unique features. It took four rounds of formatting, which was longer than the review feedback period, but it was ultimately accepted. The whole process took half a year. However, the publication fee is a bit expensive, $3000 USD or 20,000 RMB, and it hurts!

aclnlp 2022-06-28

The impact factor for 2021 has been released, and it is 6.107.

AntonioWhalen 2022-06-16

Cell Press public account strongly recommends

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ldPzZwJANrx7LhXrG3UukA

Very exciting interdisciplinary science!

AntonioWhalen 2022-06-16

There was originally no trouble in the world, it is the mediocre people who disturb themselves. Chinese researchers compare iScience with Nc, SA, which reflects their own mindset. In fact, iScience is a legitimate Research Journal of Cell Press, commonly known as a sub-journal of Cell. Unlike Nature Publishing Group (NPG), NPG has strict levels. Nature -> Nature Research Journal -> Nature Communications -> Communications series...

Recently, I was torn between iScience and Communications Physics. My advisor reminded me with a single sentence that regardless of the impact factor, I can confidently say that iScience is a sub-journal of Cell. If it is Communications Physics, of course, I can say it's a sub-journal of Nature, but I always feel less confident about it.

From this perspective, iScience will definitely have a good development in the future. You see, even with a significant increase in the number of publications, its impact factor grows at a rate of 0.5 to 1 every year. So it will definitely be good in the future. Moreover, Cell Press does not have a crazy pursuit of impact factor, everything is based on science, so its reputation in the field is very good.

davidyoung1994 2022-06-15

I think the main controversy surrounding this magazine currently stems from the mismatch between the initial expectations and the actual situation. The magazine was initially positioned as NC or SA, but it clearly hasn't reached that level. However, if we consider it as a normal magazine with a rating between 5 and 9 in the future, it is still decent.

davidyoung1994 2022-06-14

The editor is very nice and hopes that iScience will continue to prosper.

passover 2022-06-14

Just calculate a few more journals and compare them, and you will know. For example, BMC Biology is already 0.04 behind iScience. Last year, BMC Biology was above 7.4, so it is possible for iScience to reach 8 next year. Of course, other journals can also be compared, and they all point to the range of 7 to 8.

zjzjzjzjzj 2022-06-13

I would like to ask about Passover. I can calculate this year's, but how do I predict next year's impact factor? What is the basis for predicting it to exceed 7.0 next year? Your response last year mentioned that this year's score would be between 7-8. I think you are quite amusing.

passover 2022-06-02

Approximately 6.2 or so. It is now gradually catching up with BMC Biology and Communications Biology and is expected to surpass 7.0 next year. This journal has recently published many highly influential papers, such as the popular Thousand Golden Vines paper a few days ago and the Tsinghua University Cell Atlas paper. Therefore, the future citation situation looks very promising.

XXOOXXOOXXOO 2022-06-02

Can I go to grade 6 this year?

LCCCCCL 2022-05-29

Last year, I submitted an article to iScience, which was initially rejected by Matter but then accepted for free publication. This year, I worked on an energy storage project and first submitted it to Sci Adv, but it was rejected. I then submitted it to small NC, which was also rejected. Finally, I submitted it to iScience, but it was rejected again (possibly because they do not accept articles in the field of electrochemistry). I was already feeling discouraged and was considering submitting it to the Communication XX series, but in the end, I couldn't bear to do so (this article represents several years of hard work, with supporting information spanning 80 pages and nearly a hundred composite images). Instead, I resubmitted it to Advanced Materials. Unexpectedly, after the submission, I received four positive reviews and one negative review with minor revisions. I just received the revised version today. This submission process has been quite confusing, and it increasingly makes me realize that submitting articles is a matter of luck...

Here we are 2022-05-20

Translate the following text into English: Cross-disciplinary Milestone Research

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Sl8tpD0UlewmuL2ZRSyHQg

This will greatly increase the citation rate!

It's going to be popular!

Endophyte-boy 2022-04-28

The submission system is very efficient. When it was almost two months old, I received the first-round revision comments. The editor and reviewers were very kind. The specific suggestions were of great help in improving the quality of the manuscript. After making the changes, I received minor revision comments after a month, and they were accepted after two weeks of modification. The publication fee is $3000. I hope iScience will continue to improve!

Mo12301 2022-04-08

I transferred from Matter, and the iScience editor proposed an exemption for processing fees, so I transferred to it. The review process was quick, taking about 10-20 days, but the review comments surprised me. In a previous review of a PSS Rapid Communications paper, I encountered a reviewer from Morocco who had 6 similar comments to the ones in this review, and he even requested a citation to his own literature in between. This clearly indicates that it is not a problem with my article, but rather that the reviewer is using a template (in addition, there are two other comments that are invalid because they are not related to my article and it is evident that he didn't carefully read my article). The first two reviewers provided minor revisions and highly praised our work, but this reviewer listed a pile of revisions and the editor gave major revisions. I even suspect that the editor might be taking bribes (considering the low quality of that person's articles, why would they be chosen as a reviewer?). Currently, I am in the stage of major revisions and I am hesitating whether to complain to the editor-in-chief or withdraw the submission and submit to a different journal.

菜狗 2022-04-07

Jan 26, 2022 Submitted to Journal
Jan 26, 2022 Under Review
Mar 5, 2022 Major Revision
Mar 21, 2022 Revision Submitted
Mar 21, 2022 Under Review
Apr 01, 2022 Pre-accept
Apr 04, 2022 Finalize
Apr 07, 2022 Accept

The journal recommended by my boss has great potential for development, and I believe Cell Press will help the journal grow even better.
The editor is very responsible and works very quickly. The manuscripts were sent for review on the same day. The review process is also quite good.
The only complaint is that after the pre-acceptance, there were two adjustments according to the publishing house's formatting requirements, which was a bit cumbersome. Maybe because I used to submit to smaller journals in my field, I am not yet accustomed to this, it might be a characteristic of the publishing house.

cooler1314 2022-04-06

The emphasis is different, so iScience is expected to receive fewer biology papers, as most of them are received by Cell, Mol Cell, Cell Stem Cell, and Cell Rep. iScience should not compete with them, unless it is a highly interdisciplinary field such as materials biology or robotic biology. Recently, there have been several interesting articles in the past few issues, such as lion relationships, paleontology, and mailing plasmids, etc. There are not many pictures, giving it a taste similar to the main issue of Science in the past.

月圆清梦 2022-03-24

Actually, I feel that I should have more say in its positioning. It's quite interesting because at that time, I submitted the article to Cell Reports together with my boss's senior colleague. Our work content was similar, they focused on in vivo while I focused on in vitro. From a research perspective, in vivo is definitely better. His revision was accepted, and my editor requested to transfer it to iScience, which was also accepted after revision.

Currently, iScience is still inferior to Cell Reports. However, I hope that it can develop better through interdisciplinary collaboration.

purer 2022-03-24

Thank you, 'zjzjzjzjzj', for coming forward and exposing the conspiracy of the counterfeiters who have been promoting iScience. I hope iScience deteriorates and becomes like Sci Rep.

``zjzjzjzjzj 2022-03-23

After graduation, this email account was cancelled. Do you know how much effort I put in to recover this account? Just to slap certain people in the face. I submitted an article and got into the fan circle, but it was so stupid. Now that I've slapped their faces, I have nothing more to say. "No need to argue about strengths and weaknesses with XX." Those who understood what I said earlier can naturally have an objective perspective. As for you few, continue idolizing stars.

passover 2022-03-17

This zjzjzjzjzj is indeed a high imitation, specifically targeting iScience for blacklisting. Everyone, please be careful and distinguish that the one he is imitating is the 'zjzjzjzjzj' on the 26th floor, with two strokes in front. However, this imposter does not have these two strokes in front. Therefore, his comments are all nonsense, and everyone should not waste time reading them.

iScience is a flagship interdisciplinary journal of Cell Press. Although its current impact factor may not be comparable to sa and nc, its future is limitless. Take advantage of the potential stock period and invest quickly. Good luck!

zjzjzjzjzj 2022-03-17

Continuing from the previous message, submitting an article depends on individual needs. I have also attended lectures by experts and highly recognize iScience. But you should ask the experts if they are willing to submit their work from the prominent journal to iScience. Some experts don't mind submitting one more or one less paper to a lower-tier journal, as long as it is at the same level of quality, in order to support and invest in iScience. However, for some young scholars, every point matters. When you don't have good articles, would you give up the opportunity to publish in a lower-tier journal and choose iScience instead? As an academic exchange platform, we should respect every journal and every author. You have turned it into a "fans-idol" feeling. Would SCI magazine ask people to criticize other journals on LetPub? You are quite funny. And finally, if your field is immunology and your representative work is at the level of iScience, I sincerely suggest you focus your energy on scientific research. But based on the cognitive abilities you have revealed in a few sentences... ummm, take care of yourselves.

zjzjzjzjzj 2022-03-17

I was amused by you, really. You are so cute. High imitation, hahaha. I only have this account, and I also posted the comment on the 26th floor. Who would have the time to imitate? In other words, are my comments considered negative? With your understanding and perspective, iScience is already your limit, right? You can no longer objectively and calmly discuss a journal, so there is no point in saying anything to you. I see that your specialty is immunology, and I have some friends at Zhejiang University and Wuhan University who work in immunology. Many experts are very positive about the level of iScience. But experts' recognition cannot be relied upon for employment or staying in academia; they look at impact factors and journal rankings. If you are a young university teacher, and your academic committee considers iScience to be on the same level as NC and SA in order to evaluate your position, then you can ignore what I said and consider iScience to be the best. However, for most PhDs and young teachers, the window for promotion is very short, and they don't have time to look forward. It is not up for debate that iScience has a low impact factor, right? The impact factor is there and cannot be faked.

Here we are 2022-03-13

Thanks for the reminder, Daddy. I almost got tricked by this bastard. This impersonator is so despicable! iScience has extremely strict requirements for paper quality, and it doesn't obsess over Impact Factor like nc does. iScience will only get better and better.

Daddy 2022-03-10

There is another possibility that these hackers are sent by competing journals to sabotage iScience, or they themselves are editors of these competing journals. However, this possibility is very small. The most likely possibility is that some authors have been rejected by iScience.

Daddy 2022-03-10

Forum has high imitation, everyone please be careful. In order to discredit iScience, some hackers have gone to great lengths and put in a lot of effort. The original poster of the 26th floor, 'zjzjzjzjzj', spoke well of iScience, but then some criminals impersonated him and registered a high imitation account 'zjzjzjzjzj', and started discrediting iScience on the 35th floor. I hope everyone will be cautious.

Why do so many people put in so much effort to discredit a high-quality journal? Most likely it's because their papers were rejected by iScience and they hold a grudge. Just think about it, if it weren't for the deep hatred, who would be willing to go through the trouble of registering a high imitation account to discredit it? Although iScience may not currently match up to NC and SA, it still has very high requirements for papers. I hope everyone will be daring to submit their manuscripts, but also be prepared for rejection.

zjzjzjzjzj 2022-03-10

Being mentioned in the article does not mean that it cannot be criticized. Currently, everyone is talking about its potential, but looking at the impact factor, it is not going up. The impact factor for the year 2021 is only 6. In my article submitted to iScience, I couldn't get published in NC and SA, but I can definitely submit it to a professional journal with a score of 7-8, or split it into two smaller publications with scores around 5. So, as a doctoral student who invested in publishing an article in iScience, I feel like it was a loss. Hopefully, it will get better in the future, but by the time it does, I might not need it anymore.

Daddy 2022-03-04

As a journal that just obtained a complete impact factor last year, iScience currently cannot be compared with nc and sa. But everything needs to look forward. This is a potential stock with unlimited prospects. nc is clearly defined as a third-tier journal by NGP, but iScience, in Cell Press, does not have such a definition of a third tier except that it is not a flagship. It seems that Cell Press still values it greatly.

111% 2022-02-28

The question is, can you handle NC and SA? iScience, NC, and SA are not even in the same league. In 2021, NC's real-time impact factor reached 17, and SA also exceeded 14.

Daddy 2022-02-25

Since you think this journal is not good, then why did you submit your article to it? You didn't suddenly realize it was not good, did you? As a decent magazine, since your article has already been accepted, you should promote this journal and support it. Why do you want to criticize it and even post two threads to criticize it?

I bet your paper was rejected by iScience, that's why you came here to strike back.

伊卡 2022-02-25

I really regret submitting to this journal. Actually, my previous work was acceptable. Anyway, I won't be deceived by publications like Cell anymore. There are countless publications from Nature, but the ones that are truly recognized are the main journals and flagship journals. There are still many controversies surrounding NC, I won't comment on it. In short, I don't have high expectations for this journal. It's not just criticism, it's a fact. It has been developing for several years, but it's just mediocre. It's a pity for my work.