速效丧心丸 2023-07-28

Hello, may I ask if there are any templates or where I can find the templates on the official website? I've been searching for a while but couldn't find them.

夜未阑 2023-07-25

Reply to [Ambitious CC]:
Usually, it is best to have three opinions and if you don't want to lean left, editing should be enough to make a decision.

有上进心的cc 2023-07-24

Hello good friend, may I ask, regarding my article, I invited 6 people to review it. In the end, 5 people agreed to review it. Currently, 2 people have completed the review. Do I need to wait for all 5 people's opinions to come back? Or will the editor notify me after receiving 3 opinions?

夜未阑 2023-07-24

Reply [relaying2014]:
The editor responsible for my article gave the same opinion as you: "the evaluation is not positive enough." I suppose the style is somewhat similar.
Indeed, this article was reviewed very quickly. The previous one took five months for the first review, and the "under review" status changed many times. It seems that the editor asked multiple reviewers for their opinions and made a decision. This time, it seems like any opposing opinions were rejected without even considering the content of the article. (These are just my speculations.)

relaying2014 2023-07-22

From this review, I personally feel one thing, the review speed is very fast, and they may have many manuscripts to handle, which speeds up the process. The editor for my second article is the same as the first one, and their level is very high. I have read their monographs and articles, and they are familiar with the content of my article. So either he himself does not approve of the so-called innovation, or it is actually someone else who handles it. Reviewing too quickly may not necessarily be good, as it means ending without waiting for the opinions of the third or fourth reviewers. This means that as long as someone says it is not good, there is a high possibility of rejection (in other words, they are not willing to get involved). I guess the number of submissions is too large, resulting in this outcome.

夜未阑 2023-07-20

Although the submission result was rejected, the submission experience was still good. Here is a reference for everyone:

6.11 submitted to journal
6.12 with editor
6.13 under review
6.21 1st reviewer complete
6.27 2nd reviewer complete
7.13 3rd reviewer complete
7.13 required reviewers completed
7.16 reject

There were a total of three reviewers. Two of them agreed more and only raised some explanatory questions and suggested additional literature. The opinion of the third reviewer was more sharp, possibly from the industry. They completely questioned the rationality of the research object (based on their design experience, they believed that the research and application of electric boats are not mature, so research based on this is completely meaningless). Indeed, from a practical design perspective, the model may be simplified. I conducted the research from an algorithmic perspective, which had a significant difference from the reviewers' requirements. The associate editor did not provide any suggestions for revision or resubmission, and it was rejected.

I had previously published in EPSR once, and this was my second submission. The review process was much faster than before. Regarding the format, I directly formatted it into a single column (previously it was double column). If I have new articles in the future, I will still try to submit to EPSR. I also hope that everyone can be successful in their submissions!

seuyounger 2023-07-16

Correction, the review speed is 4 months~

seuyounger 2023-07-16

The handling speed of the journal editor and external reviewers has improved significantly compared to previous years. The first review usually takes between 1.5 to 6 months. There are typically 2 to 4 reviewers assigned, with 2 reviewers for the recently accepted paper and 4 for the previous one. The responses to the reviewers' comments were addressed seriously, leading to a higher acceptance rate during the second review. One of the experts raised a crucial technical issue, which required a major revision of the paper. On average, each response to a question spanned 4 pages. The journal does not have a fixed template, but I prefer using Word with double columns (although single column is also acceptable). During the proofreading stage, the editorial department will convert the paper into a uniform format. The editor will send a track link to the corresponding author to facilitate timely updates on the submission status. Additionally, the later stages of proofreading are quite convenient, and if there is no update on the status for an extended period, it is possible to request an update. Here, I would like to express my appreciation to Elsevier and EPSR.

伊贝贝 2023-07-15

Hello, may I ask if the second review acceptance rate is high? I have just submitted my revised manuscript for the second review, and I am not sure if this journal still rejects articles after the second review.

AyaHe 2023-07-09

The text translates to:

2023.03.17 submitted to the journal
2023.04.30 major revision
2023.05.21 revision submitted
2023.07.09 accepted

There were only two reviewers for my submission, so the average review time for each round was around 2 months, which can be taken as a reference.

I would like to share some information about the formatting issue. The official website requires the initial draft to be in 12-point font, single column, and double-spaced, with a maximum of 22 pages. If I strictly follow this requirement, my initial draft will exceed the page limit. Therefore, I used a 10-point font for the rest of the text while following the other requirements. During the review process, there were no format-related issues raised. After adding additional content in the revised version, it extended beyond the page limit to 25 pages, but it did not pose any problem.

伊贝贝 2023-07-08

6.24 major revision translates to "A significant revision on June 24th".

企鹅 2023-06-23

It has been 10 days since submission, but it is still "with editor". How long does it usually take to become "under review"?

QFEI 2023-06-16

May 30, 2023 Submission
June 8, 2023 External Audit

gbr123 2023-06-13

Hello! May I ask how long does it usually take for the Electric Power Systems Research journal to go from "with editor" to "under review"? Do all authors of a paper need to receive a confirmation email in order for it to enter the "under review" status? I submitted it on May 28th and it is still in the "with editor" status.

gbr123 2023-06-13

Hello! May I ask how long does it usually take for the Electric Power Systems Research journal to go from "with editor" to "under review"? Do all co-authors need to confirm their authorship via email from the journal before it can enter the "under review" status? I submitted my paper on 5.28 and it is still in the "with editor" status, so I'm a bit anxious.

gbr123 2023-06-13

Hello! May I ask how long does it usually take for the journal Electric Power Systems Research to go from "with editor" to "under review"? Do all authors of a paper need to confirm their authorship through email from the journal before it can enter the "under review" status? I submitted my paper on May 28th and it is still in the "with editor" status, and I am in a hurry.

伊贝贝 2023-06-09

6.7 Changes from "required reviews complete" to "under review".

一号位突破手 2023-06-05

"The review is completed so quickly, is it true...?"

伊贝贝 2023-06-02

6.1 Required Reviews Completed

伊贝贝 2023-05-30

5.21 提交 - Submitted on 5.21
5.23 with editor - With editor on 5.23
5.25 under review - Under review on 5.25

风中花雪中月 2023-05-13

For manufacturers of power system equipment, should it be considered as the second highest non-OA journal on Elsevier after IJEPES?

1: Submitted to the journal on November 18, 2022.
2: With editor on November 19, 2022.
3: Under review since December 18, 2022.
4: Major revision on February 3, 2023.
5: Revision submitted to journal on February 19, 2023.
6: Under review since February 20, 2023.
7: Accepted on April 19, 2023.

There was a delay in the middle of the major revision due to a reviewer, but there were no minor revisions afterwards and it was accepted directly.

漫漫科研 2023-05-08

This journal does not have particularly strict requirements for templates. The official website has some requirements for formatting, such as using font size 12, double spacing, left alignment, and page margins, etc. There is also a page limit of 22 pages. If I strictly follow the journal's requirements, my manuscript would exceed 6 or 7 pages. Therefore, I changed the font size to 11 and adjusted the page margins, ultimately keeping it within 22 pages. After submission, the editor did not raise any formatting issues.

高存根 2023-05-06

Personally, the review speed of this journal is really fast. It took less than 3 months from submission to revision and acceptance. However, what I find strange is that my article was accepted in September 2022 and published online in November 2022 on Elsevier. But for some reason, it has still not been indexed by Web of Science as of May 2023. It is very strange!

漫漫科研 2023-03-29

Overall, the review process of this journal is relatively long. Even when the editor did not receive any review comments within the first four months, they did not expedite the review process. Additionally, the speed of handling after uploading the files is not very fast. Since the editor's letter mentioned that they strive to reply with the initial review results within four months, and I was also dealing with the review comments of another article during this period, I kept waiting until the full four months to send the first reminder. Furthermore, due to not having significant pressure in terms of graduation requirements and personally believing that this article can be classified as Q2, I did not have many concerns when sending the reminder. I hope this information is helpful to everyone.

漫漫科研 2023-03-29

In Step 3, it took more than a month to find one reviewer, but only one was found. This person also delayed reviewing for several months, and was reminded twice in early November and on January 10th. After the first reminder, the reviewer found another reviewer, who accepted the review around early January of the 23rd year.
After the second reminder, the editor replied that the review process was too long, and ended the initial review, clearly stating that a new reviewer would be invited for the second review. The initial reviewer provided four professional opinions, mainly involving the addition of test cases and some descriptions related to the model. The opinions were positive and it was recommended to accept them.

漫漫科研 2023-03-29

1: 2022.6.17 submitted to the journal
2: 2022.6.23 with editor
3: 2022.7.2 under review
4: 2023.1.19 major revise
5: 2023.2.17 revision submitted to journal
6: 2023.2.19 under review
7: 2023.3.6 minor revise
8: 2023.3.9 revision submitted to journal
9: 2023.3.13 under review
10: 2023.3.28 accept

Dreamer-Yqh 2023-03-25

Hello, do you have a word template for submitting contributions?

Dreamer-Yqh 2023-03-25

Hello, may I ask if there is a Word template for submissions?

阿头君 2023-03-02

First review took a month and a half, and the first review took an additional 3 and a half months due to delays in modifications. Currently, it has been two weeks since the first review was revised, and the status is still "with editor". If it remains in this status for another week, I will send an email to inquire.

Vurgit 2023-03-01

May I ask how long is your review period? What are the timeframes for submission, first review, revision, and acceptance?