深山老鬼 2023-02-16

2023-2-14 review complete translates to English as "Review complete on February 14, 2023."

2023-2-15 under view translates to English as "Under review on February 15, 2023."

无所谓惧怕 2023-02-16

12.31 submission
1.7 under review
2.16 major revision
The speed is quite fast, and the luck is good. The reviewers are very professional and provided a bunch of valuable comments.

紫露可可 2023-02-12

January 29th was rejected, with a DIP of about a week in between.

kakarot 2023-02-02

1.17 submit - This means that something was submitted or sent.
1.19 with editor - This implies that something is currently with an editor, possibly undergoing editing or review.
1.31 under review - This indicates that something is currently being reviewed or evaluated.

sudk 2023-02-02

I will talk about some information I know. I have to say that the reviewing speed is faster now, but the quality of the submitted articles is indeed uneven. So, if you happen to know a reviewer or a lenient reviewer, then you have a good chance. Also, sometimes, even if the reviewers reject the article with sufficient comments, if there is only one reviewer who provides feedback, the editor may still accept it. So, everyone should decide for themselves whether to submit.

未来的院士 2023-02-01

Do you manage internet usernames? First, make sure to manage yourself, child!

未来的院士 2023-02-01

What?? JCP is no longer a reputable magazine?? The issue is that the revealed pattern is copying someone else's work. That's all I have to say, after all, no one wants to see the journal they submitted being criticized as garbage.

MrHooper 2023-01-30

Agree with the comment on the first floor. This also depends on luck. Don't be so absolute about everything. It's not arguing. You should change your username first. "Future academician" is a bit exaggerated.

concreep 2023-01-30

A review article was submitted on January 13th. From January 13th to January 29th, it was under the review of the editor. Currently, it is still with the editor. The date status was updated on January 29th.

jiaotong23seu 2023-01-28

I am also a reviewer for CCC, let me say a few words.
When did the quality of a paper only depend on the amount of experimental work and testing methods? Has it nothing to do with the underlying principles or innovation?
MIT's Jennings achieved CCR by repeatedly flushing a cement slurry with flowing water, revealing the microstructural composition of C-S-H.
According to your theory, is CCR also a low-quality journal?
Furthermore, let's take a step back, which journal doesn't have some low-quality submissions? I know a professor who measured the temperature changes during the heating process of asphalt with a thermometer and got it published in the Journal of Cleaner Production in just two months. Does that mean JCP is a low-quality journal? Sometimes it's just a matter of luck, if the paper ends up in the hands of a familiar reviewer. How can we use luck to dismiss a journal?

未来的院士 2023-01-20

I am a reviewer for CCC, and I was delighted when I saw an article recently accepted by CCC. They were able to publish it just by conducting a stress test using some materials. They only used six or seven basic theoretical calculation formulas from textbooks, without any simulations or data analysis. Oh my goodness, can CCC publish an article just by conducting a fracture test? Wouldn't CBM be a better option? I advise everyone, if you can submit to CCR, then don't submit to CCC. I am just stating the facts, if you disagree, that's your choice.

hhyyt 2023-01-19

Mine too, always with the editor. How about the original poster?

紫露可可 2023-01-17

1.6 Submission
1.7 With editor
1.17 Status unchanged

深山老鬼 2022-12-19

2022-12-29 revisión importante

述一 2022-12-05

In September, I submitted my paper to CCR and it was transferred to CCC by the editor. I appreciate the recognition and efficient handling from Editor-in-Chief Banthia and all the reviewing professors. The process took a total of 74 days and it was accepted after one major revision. There were three reviewers who raised around twenty questions.

深山老鬼 2022-11-29

11-29 under review

香菜味福佳白 2022-11-25

You are considered one of the lucky few, unexpectedly so fast. The speed of submitting to CCC is famously slow in the building materials industry. I wouldn't dare submit without reserving a year's time.

黑白灰 2022-11-21

Mine too, it has been several days and I have been with the editor all along.

深山老鬼 2022-11-21

2022-11-8 submit
2022-11-10 with editor
It has been 11 days and it is still with the editor.

拉丝仙人 2022-11-19

The efficiency of journal peer review is particularly high. It was "with editor" the day after submission, and "under review" on the fourth day. It only took 59 days from submission to acceptance, which is very nice.

猫和啵啵鱼 2022-09-08

How are you doing now?

fendoufendou 2022-09-05

It took a year, and finally recorded.

zds001 2022-09-01

The journal is quite good, and the review process is also fast (it took exactly 30 days from submission to receiving feedback). Initially, there were two reviewers, one for revisions and one for rejection (I believe the latter didn't carefully read the article, as the experimental equipment was mentioned; the abbreviations of proper names in the article were written in full in their first occurrence, with a note). Then, a third reviewer was sought (based on the change in the "required reviews completed" time). The third reviewer found some issues with the English writing in the manuscript, including grammar errors. They suggested further polishing, providing more introduction in the abstract, and adding experimental conditions. However, the editor rejected it citing lack of innovation and insufficient English proficiency according to the journal's standards. Let's make the necessary revisions and try submitting again. Good luck!

猫和啵啵鱼 2022-08-26

0826 has been submitted with unknown results. Previously, I didn't dare to submit CCC because I was afraid of the long wait time. This time, I decided to give it a try, feeling anxious and hopeful for a positive outcome.

北航 2022-08-23

The text translates to: "The revised manuscript took 8 days to become 'Required reviews completed'. It has been four or five days now, and there is no result yet..."

alex_h 2022-08-16

In the second article, CCC, I will share my experience. Both articles have me as the first author and corresponding author, while my supervisor is the second and last author.

The first article took over ten months for the first review and over three months for the second review. After revisions, it was accepted, taking a total of over one year.

The second article took one month for the first review (but the decision-in-process took another month), and one week for the second review. After revisions, it was accepted, taking a total of three months.

The long review process is usually due to slow reviewers. I suggest that when suggesting reviewers, include several reliable experts in relevant fields. However, the suggested reviewers should not have had any previous collaborations with any of the authors, as that would not be considered.

小白小黑 2022-08-11

On August 8th, I transferred from the Journal of Building Engineering to this journal. However, there is no information about the status of my submission in the journal. Are there any classmates who have experienced a similar situation?

飞飞0217 2022-08-02

Excuse me, the original poster (OP) updated the date with the editor three days ago, but the status is still "with editor," and it has been lasting for a month. Should I remind them or should I wait a little longer?

fendoufendou 2022-07-29

Two months of required reviews completed, hoping for good results.

fendoufendou 2022-07-29

I would like to know how to find out if the reviewers have agreed to review my manuscript. Does the editorial department send a link similar to CBM's track your submission?