Biotherm 2023-08-07

July 31st submit
August 3rd initial assessment
August 7th in peer review
Awaiting good news

Acarboner 2023-05-30

4.24 Submission
5.10 Notice of Major Revision, two reviewers, one major revision, one minor revision, major revision suggested by the editor
5.12 Submission of revised draft
5.26 Acceptance
5.27 Online publication

Jie 2023-05-14

Transfer to the same magazine, it took 25 days for the submission to be accepted, the efficiency is very high, and the chief editor provided feedback quickly. The only downside is that the impact factor is a bit low.

最强大脑中国好声音 2022-11-20

Apart from ACS's crystal growth and design, this is one of the few journals in the field of crystallography. If you look at the journals that publish articles on crystallography, there are only a few. It has even been downgraded to Zone 3. Ah, hurry up and return to Zone 2, otherwise there will be nowhere to submit articles on crystallography. The level of this journal is evident to all.

bswk 2022-09-14

Appeal to the classification experts of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to consider the actual level and reputation of the journal. This long-established magazine should continue to be classified as Category 2.

bswk 2022-09-14

This journal has strict peer review and the reviewers are highly professional. It is a good and well-established journal that should definitely not be downgraded to Zone 3. We hope that the experts in charge of categorizing journals at the Chinese Academy of Sciences can thoroughly understand this magazine and not hurt the feelings of researchers. We appeal to everyone to provide suggestions to the experts at the Chinese Academy of Sciences regarding journal categorization and strongly demand that it remains in the second tier.

像闪电一样快 2022-08-11

Has been published online

爱吃泡面の北堂囡囡 2022-08-06

On July 26, submitted to the editor.
On July 27, under peer review.
On August 6, with editor.
Result unknown.

像闪电一样快 2022-08-01

A master's thesis has finally been published after going through some revisions. There were two reviewers, and the questions were not very difficult. The editor suggested major revisions.
The reviewer's comments were responded to within a week, and the revised version was accepted in the second review. Overall, the review process was relatively fast.

zhangpeng 2022-07-12

2022.5.30 Submission
2022.6.6 External review
2022.7.1 Received review comments, minor revisions
2022.7.10 Responded to review comments
2022.7.12 Accepted

最强大脑中国好声音 2022-06-09

An article with both theory and experiment, the experiment is relatively conventional, but the theoretical innovation is strong. It was accepted with minor revisions by three reviewers. It is not fair to downgrade it by three zones in the regional rankings. This journal is not open access, but isn't it as prestigious as OL (Optics Letters) and OE (Optics Express)? It's a pity to see such a good journal being downgraded by three zones, but it seems that its impact factor is starting to increase recently. I wish the journal continued success.

qingt101 2021-11-18

2021.8.5 - Submitted
2021.10.9 - Minor revisions
2021.11.8 - Accepted

fzc 2021-11-16

Supplement:
After the revised manuscript was submitted on November 15, 2020, it underwent a second review.
On January 6, 2021, based on the results of the second review, it was accepted directly.

三天写出SCI 2021-08-27

June 8, 2021: Submitted initial assessment
June 10: Under editor's review
June 16: In peer review
During this period, it switched between "with editor" and "in peer review" three times.
July 18: Major revision required
August 2: Submitted revisions
August 2: Under editor's review
August 6: In peer review
August 23: In peer review
August 25: Accepted

欧阳冠南 2021-05-14

2021.3.12 Submission
2021.4.20 Reviewer's comments: Major revision
2021.4.26 Comments for revision returned
2021.5.13 Accepted

魏伟安 2021-04-26

3.23 submit
3.24 with editor
3.25 in peer review
4.6 Major revision
4.13 revised
4.14 in peer review
4.26 accept

Overall, the efficiency is very high. The manuscript was received for revision within half a month and accepted after another half a month of reevaluation. Thank you to Christian Doonan for editing and to the reviewers for their numerous but easily addressable comments. During this process, the publication editor, Paige, confirmed the crystallographic data multiple times.

琳子5 2021-04-22

2021.3.30 evening - checking submission
2021.3.31 - Initial assessment
2021.4.2 morning - With editor
2021.4.2 noon - In peer review
Still under review as of today, 4.22.

琳子5 2021-04-13

Is there any result? How long does it take to receive the modification suggestions after submission for review?

rjmsysjf 2021-02-10

Reply to the comment below: I know that this journal usually has two reviewers. Could it be that one reviewer is supportive and the other is critical, and then you went to seek arbitration?

梅西西西 2021-02-05

Three days after submission, it entered peer review. Approximately ten days later, it changed to "with editor," which made me think the review process was completed. However, after waiting for three more days, it went back into peer review. After another week of waiting, the status changed again to "with editor" the next day. What is going on? Does this mean that the selected reviewers rejected the review twice?

刘尚校 2021-02-05

Three days after submission, it entered peer review. Approximately ten days later, it changed to "with editor," making me think the review process was over. However, after waiting for three more days, it re-entered peer review. Another week passed, and its status changed to "with editor" again. The following day, it changed back to "in peer review." What's going on? Does this mean that the selected reviewers rejected the review twice?

fzc 2021-01-07

2020-09-28 Submission
2020-11-09 Three reviewers, all recommended major or minor revisions, editor recommended major revisions
2020-11-15 Revised manuscript submitted
2021-01-06 Accepted directly