蓝眼睛 2023-08-03

It has been seven months and still no news.

蓝眼睛 2023-05-02

2023.1.02 submitted
2023.1.03 under review
Four months have passed and the first review has not yet been completed.

contaminate 2023-04-19

La revisión se ha enviado el 8 de abril de 2023.

(Translation: The revision has been submitted on April 8, 2023.)

contaminate 2023-04-19

31/12/2022, submitted
02/1/2023, under review
17/3/2023, minor revision
18/4/2023, accept

From submission to acceptance, it took 4 and a half months. The reviewing speed of the journal is really fast. The recognition of this journal in foreign countries is very high. I don't understand why it is only ranked as a 3rd or 4th tier journal in the Chinese Academy of Sciences classification.

科研垃圾 2023-01-30

Correction, 17/8/2022, under review.

科研垃圾 2023-01-30

8/17/2022, Under Review
7/11/2022, Minor Revision
17/1/2023, Submit the Revision
18/1/2023, Accept (without External Review)

NAG's requirements and peer review are quite strict. Many times, even if the paper is sent for review, it is likely to be rejected after major revisions. It is important to improve the quality of the manuscript!

The WeChat number provided for communication is: ly1308110437.

姑苏寒山寺 2022-06-17

NAG and COGE are the best publications in computational geotechnical mechanics. NAG has fewer publications and a longer history, while COGE has rapidly improved its impact factor in recent years due to its extremely fast review process and the involvement of a large number of Chinese editorial board members. COGE has become the top journal in computational geotechnical engineering, while NAG is gradually declining and has even been classified as a third-tier journal by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. However, both NAG and COGE are good journals, at least ranking below Geotechnique, JGGE, and CGJ in the field of geotechnical engineering.

marlonli 2022-05-12

This journal is clearly a top journal in the field of geotechnical numerical simulation. I don't understand the classification by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Maybe they are biased towards Aisville. In Europe, especially in the UK and the Netherlands, it has a high recognition. The first review was received after three and a half months of submission, with two reviewers providing comments, one minor revision and one rejection. The editor-in-chief requested major revisions, which took one and a half months to be accepted. Although its overall impact is not as high as COGE, personally, I feel that some of the papers published in this journal are of much higher quality than those in COGE.