mike 2021-03-23

It has been a month since I submitted it, and it is still being edited. This is my first time submitting to this journal, and I haven't referenced any articles from this journal. After reading the comments, it seems like my chances are slim.

luomu 2021-03-22

Posted on February 21, 2021
Under review on February 28, 2021
Rejected on March 21, 2021
This was my first submission, and the reason for rejection given by the editor was something that everyone in the comments section was discussing. They said that Part B now requires extremely good articles, each of which must undergo innovative and scientific scrutiny. They said your article is good, but not excellent enough, and so on.
The reviewer only provided one reason for rejection, which is frustrating. I don't know how to fix it. It would have been helpful if they had given more specific feedback instead of just saying it lacks innovation and has poor logic.
During the submission period, the status of the paper changed twice, and the third time was a tragedy.

小李2021 2021-03-22

It seems like you really don't understand. The best journal for composite materials is Composites Science and Technology. Actually, it is Composites Part A, followed by Composites Part B in third place. Currently, it has the highest impact factor (due to self-citations being significantly higher than other journals, and I remember the editor-in-chief often adding a small paragraph in the comments, informing everyone to cite articles from 2019-2020 issue B).

小李2021 2021-03-22

I remember that Junwei Gu's editing is good. The speed of handling manuscripts is very fast... Your manuscript might be executed...

小李2021 2021-03-22

I am Ca, there is also this kind of gameplay. Amazing operation. It seems that the future development prospects of this magazine are worrying!

小李2021 2021-03-22

I always feel that the current editor-in-chief's way of handling manuscripts is very peculiar. Sometimes I simply can't figure out the trick. Moreover, the processing speed of Part B journals for manuscripts is getting slower and slower. I remember last year, an editor named Junwei Gu was very fast in processing manuscripts.

Part B粉 2021-03-22

This little mouth is so sweet, obviously a typical flatterer.
Lately, the most common thing I've heard from friends around me is that "Three minor revisions were inexplicably rejected, and two minor revisions plus one major revision were also rejected, all after submitting the revised manuscript." The journal's handling process is truly speechless.

Part B粉 2021-03-22

Godlike operation. It seems there are three minor revisions that need to be addressed and submitted after replying, but they were directly rejected by Editor-in-chief Wang. Brother, you should consider yourself lucky.

Part B粉 2021-03-22

Are you not giving Editor Wang any benefits? I heard that Editor Wang is now making money everywhere in China. Those who have a good relationship with him will be published earlier, while those who have a bad relationship will be delayed. Haha.

Part B粉 2021-03-22

Editor Wang handles manuscripts without any bottom line or limits! I always feel like he's not as good as the previous editor, David.

Part B粉 2021-03-22

It must be someone familiar who got hold of the manuscript and then ignored the opinions of unfamiliar people in the rejection feedback. It's such a simple matter... If they really delete the feedback, then the chief editor is also disrespecting the reviewers and authors. If things continue like this, Part B will probably be ruined.

Part B粉 2021-03-22

Last October, I submitted a manuscript, and in December, I received the reviewer's comments: 3 minor revisions and 1 major revision. After carefully revising the manuscript according to the comments and submitting the response, it seems like the editor-in-chief sent it to a new set of reviewers. In February, I received a rejection notice. What kind of editor-in-chief is this? What kind of journal is this? This kind of approach, how can they play like this...

ezproxy 2021-03-17

Second review under review, why is it even longer than the first review, not scientific.

DDWB 2021-03-17

Just a weak query, how can the author know that "the suggestions of Xiaoxiu were actually deleted"?

DDWB 2021-03-17

I would like to ask, how can the author know that "suggestions from Xiaoxiu are directly deleted"?

小海11 2021-03-17

Sent an email saying that I found 8 reviewers, but they all rejected the review. Then I found another 8 reviewers, and it took about 3 weeks to complete. Please pray!

Part B粉 2021-03-16

It seems that the editors working on the draft of Compos Part B are not even members of the editorial board. What is going on? This is really unacceptable. I heard that Editor-in-Chief Wang is using a bunch of unpaid labor to work for him, even people who don't know anything about editing are handling the manuscripts. How could Elsevier allow such a person to be the editor-in-chief...

小李2021 2021-03-16

Editor-in-chief's work: Tough! Three minor revisions were rejected, and 2 minor revisions and 1 major revision were also rejected, all based on the opinions of the reviewers. What kind of handling method is this? Anything that the editor Wang dislikes will be directly rejected. Where is the bottom line!?

小李2021 2021-03-16

Editor-in-chief Wang has always been without bottom line in his work. His team has been excessively inflating the content of Part B for a year, and the quality of the articles is not good either. Some of his personal connections in China can quickly get their watered-down articles published. It seems that the future of Compos Part B is hopeless.

小李2021 2021-03-16

Editor-in-chief Wang repeatedly claimed that Compos Part B handles manuscripts quickly. However, it took two months for one paper to be submitted for review after multiple email reminders. After two months of review, there was still no response, so further email reminders were sent. Eventually, a rejection email was received (which only included suggestions for major revisions and rejection; the suggestions for minor revisions were completely deleted). Editor-in-chief Wang's actions are truly disgraceful, engaging in corruption throughout the country and handling matters ruthlessly. It seems that he is not even as good as the previous editor, David Hui.

Part B粉 2021-03-16

This journal, Compos Part B-Eng, is really disgusting. The manuscript handled by a certain editor received three minor revisions, but after the modifications were made and replied to, it was directly rejected by Editor-in-Chief Wang (without any reasons given). It is truly without any bottom line. They have shown such a lack of respect for both the reviewers and authors' responses. I never expected Editor-in-Chief Wang to be even more disgusting than David.

小海11 2021-03-02

under review, Day 24! Looking forward to a positive outcome!

shuier 2021-02-26

I have been waiting for a long time too, 35 days already. I don't know if I should send an email.

碳碳谈谈 2021-02-23

It has been 60 days already. Why is this journal so slow with the editor?

ezproxy 2021-02-22

Under review for 19 days, also given major repairs.

22 2021-02-04

My "UNDER REVIEW" has been for more than a month, a major revision was given. Wishing the original poster good luck.

22 2021-02-04

Excuse me, has anyone experienced the situation of having an email to the editor returned by the system after receiving feedback on major revisions? What's going on with that? Please let me know. I couldn't find the email address of the editor on the official website. Can someone please share their experience?

Steven 2021-02-04

There has been significant progress in the efficiency of manuscript review, the attitude and fairness of editors, the professionalism of review comments, the quality and quantity of published articles, the impact factor, influence, and reputation of journals, among other aspects. The achievements of journals are not easily obtained and are the result of the joint efforts of authors, editors, review experts, and readers. It is hoped that everyone will jointly uphold the reputation of the journal, create a more positive and healthy academic ecosystem, firmly resist negative influences that affect the development of journals, support the benign development of journals through practical actions, and contribute to the progress of our academic and professional careers, achieving the dual goal of the development of journals and our personal development.

小海11 2021-01-27

How long does it usually take for PART B to become "under review" with the editor?

DDWB 2021-01-27

It should be about the same, based on my judgment (not sure if it's correct):
As of January 27th, 19499 times (2000)/ [701 (2018) + 1542 (2019)] = 8.69