byakuya 2022-03-18

The editor was a bit slow, but the reviewers returned their comments quickly. The entire process, from the first and second review by the reviewers, took two weeks, but the editor's decision was slow.

后面没有路可走 2022-03-17

FLA stands for manuscript. The full text should not exceed 5000 words, including a total of no more than 12 pages of figures and tables. It seems that this requirement was only introduced in 2022.

Daive Hu 2022-03-17

What does FLA refer to? Is it a manuscript?

Daive Hu 2022-03-17

The system rejected it. I don't understand what this comment is about. Please ask everyone for help. Thank you very much...
For FLA, the word count should not exceed 5000 words and the page count should not exceed 12 pages including Figures & Tables.

科研小白兔 2022-03-09

Hello, how many times have you repaired it?

想吃咸蛋黄 2022-03-09

2022.3.8 Just luckily accepted
Encountered a very good reviewer: raised questions, and we made careful revisions according to his requirements. After resubmission, he directly rejected without any reason. Fortunately, the editor was supportive.
The editors are actually very fast, it's just that some reviewers tend to delay things.
SNB, keep going! Charge ahead!

LLLLLLLL124 2022-01-26

Submit by the end of October 2021.
Review results will be released by the end of December 2021, with 2 accepted and 1 rejected, requiring major revisions.
Revised version will be completed by mid-January 2022.
Acceptance by the end of January 2022.
Keep up the good work! Overall, it's very good!! This time, luck was also on our side!

杨扬羊 2022-01-24

May I ask what is the situation when "editor invited" changes to "submitted to journal"? It's the first time I've encountered a status change from "editor invited" to "submitted to journal".

hello2015 2022-01-21

Is there no Editor Invited stage?

临床样本00049 2022-01-20

Submitted on November 15th, it took over three weeks to be submitted, with the editor for over two weeks. Finally, it was sent for review a week before Christmas. The review process was quick, less than three weeks, and it was reviewed on January 3rd. Minor revisions were made, and it was returned on January 9th. I initially thought there would only be six comments, so it should be quick, but it kept going back and forth and I couldn't sleep. I started to suspect if there was a problem. Fortunately, it was finally accepted on January 20th! A huge weight was lifted off my shoulders. Relief...

科研小白兔 2022-01-19

On the 11th, the manuscript number was assigned by the editor, and it was sent for review on the same day.

@少年 2022-01-17

May I ask if your submission has been assigned a manuscript number?

俐俐要加油呀 2022-01-14

"Moved to the second district? Unbelievable!"

科研小白兔 2022-01-08

What was submitted on New Year's Day, why don't we have a manuscript number yet? Have you not finished your annual leave?

跨时代zzz 2022-01-07

There will be no basic version in the future, what are you feeling lost about? The upgraded version is still in the same area, the basic version has been canceled.

做最好的自己123 2021-12-31

Hello, I would like to ask what does it mean when the date changes back to August 14th? I have also encountered the same situation.

超级可乐泡泡 2021-12-30

Old fan circle hahaha

松滋 2021-12-27

At least in 2022, non-scientific individuals are evaluated based on the impact they have on me.

跨时代zzz 2021-12-25

There won't be a basic version in the future, so what are you feeling disappointed about? The upgraded version is still in the same region, right?

做最好的自己123 2021-12-25

The editor is probably on holiday, it has been quite a few days and I still haven't received the manuscript number!

阿宝vs汤大基 2021-12-21

The submission was reviewed for 4 months, then came back for minor revisions, and was accepted a week after resubmission (like a dream).

However, my dream journal suddenly turned into Zone 2, as if the sky had fallen.

Fortunately, the upgraded version is in Zone 1. It seems like after 2022, we will only refer to the upgraded version?

Anyway, let's all cite it together!! Let's protect the best SensorB brother!

我是躲猫猫 2021-12-20

Now I am back to the engineering and technology category. The goalkeeper in district 1 didn't hold on, and it was only 0.33 points away from the threshold of district 1. Everyone, quickly refer to it and cheer up!

Speaking of my unfortunate situation, I have two papers, and now they have both become district 2. I feel very disappointed.

keyan 2021-12-20

Don't pay attention to the classification of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), it was made by a group of idle people who are not engaged in scientific research. May I ask: What scientific basis does this classification have? Isn't it still based on the impact factor of the journals, supplemented by the manipulation of these people?

松滋 2021-12-20

Just received a paper, filled with joy, thinking that I finally got a paper in the first-tier journal. Who would have expected that today, the Chinese Academy of Sciences released the 2021 journal ranking, and it directly became a second-tier journal. So sad.

Dash 2021-12-13

The article is about the design of an ion migration spectrometer. I initially submitted it using an AC template but it was returned for formatting modifications. I found out that the requirement was to use a single column format and the reference citation style was from the Sensors and Actuators journal, which is likely more focused on the sensor field. I haven't submitted to this journal before in the field of mass spectrometry, so I don't know how well it is recognized in the industry.

After a month, there was a change in the status, indicating that they probably sought a new reviewer. The reviewer comments were numbered 1, 3, and 4. The review process took four months, and they requested minor revisions. I completed the revisions on the same day and I'm not sure how long it will take for the article to be published.

Two out of the three reviewers possibly didn't fully understand the article. The first one asked why I ignored Coulomb repulsion, while the second one believed that the old theory was also valid and didn't explicitly state that the new theory was wrong. To be honest, their comments were a bit confusing and difficult to understand.

Other issues included modifying the presentation of figures, adding more references, and verifying the significant figures and units of variables. In the derivation of formulas, I didn't include specific units for many variables. Instead, I added parentheses with the units when explaining the variables.

超级可乐泡泡 2021-12-06

Received at Editorial Office: 9 Aug 2021
Article revised: 28 Nov 2021
Article accepted for publication: 4 Dec 2021

The article is about a methane gas sensor. The editor is Akihide Hibara. There were three reviewers for the first review. One reviewer agreed to accept the article directly, while another reviewer suggested a minor revision to a figure. The last reviewer, who is likely one of the founders of chemometrics, Svante Wold, was very thorough and wrote three pages of comments. They felt that the current level of the article was not suitable for publication, but fortunately, the editor gave us the opportunity for major revisions. We highly value the reviewer's comments and it took me a week to start the revision and answer the reviewer's questions. The last reviewer's questions were sharp and hit the weaknesses of the article directly. The whole revision process was very torturous, but we added experimental data and necessary descriptions, significantly improving the quality of the article. After the revision, all three reviewers agreed to publish it, and the last reviewer still provided comments on our revised manuscript and agreed to publish it. Although the process was difficult, it has significantly improved my personal abilities. I am very grateful to the responsible editor and reviewers!

unsw2012 2021-11-28

Just received a minor revision.
Submitted on September 3rd.
With editor on October 3rd.
Minor revision on November 17th.
Submitted again on November 22nd.
Accepted on November 25th.

I am in the field of biomedical engineering, specializing in microfluidics.
Overall, the reviewers' level is average, and the editor is nice.
The process is slow. I went through two rounds with this journal. The first time, it took four months for major revisions. This time, for minor revisions, it took over three months and 20 days.
If you are in a hurry to graduate, I recommend being cautious when submitting to this journal because it is really slow!

loro 2021-11-17

Hahaha, right? I also received a message saying that the room temperature needs to be specified with a specific temperature, which is reasonable. But the editor told me that the sensor at room temperature needs to detect humidity changes. I looked at many of their journals, but I didn't find any specific humidity requirements. After the experiment was completed, I included the graph in the supplementary information, and then they asked me to put it on the main page. This back and forth happened for a month, and they asked me to resubmit three times. I decisively gave up.

loro 2021-11-17

To be honest, I can't help but want to vent a little.

Trash.
The editor is slow and annoying.
They don't have a template themselves, but keep picking on the formatting issues. After three rounds of revisions, the main editor sent it back to me, asking me to add experiments and change the format. After I made the changes and submitted it to the associate editor, they sent it back to me again, saying that I shouldn't have put two figures in the supplementary information, but on the main page.
Then they asked me to revise it again before submitting. They asked if I gave up. It's so frustrating. Going back and forth for a month, making revisions and adding experiments (to be honest, the experiments don't really make sense).
As for where to put the figures, I want to say, if you are sure to accept my paper, why not let me make the changes...Moreover, either provide a template or specify the formatting.
Well...no matter how great they are, I won't submit again...I'm speechless...hahaha. The reputation of this journal in our group is very bad, especially when dealing with that Japanese editor...kkkk. Good luck to everyone. Anyway, even if this journal is amazing, I have already blocked it. This time, it's not him rejecting me, it's me rejecting him...I don't even want to mention the minor issues anymore, it just feels frustrating.

Dizi 2021-10-10

7.7 Submission
8.11 First round of review comments returned, major revision required. Two reviewers provided their feedback. The first reviewer was very professional and had insightful comments. We followed their suggestions and conducted additional experiments. It's difficult to describe the issues raised by the second reviewer, but one of them was related to the experimental content: we were asked to provide a detailed description of the experimental principles in the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections, as well as to discuss the differences between our work and previous publications in the introduction. We carefully revised the manuscript according to their suggestions.
8.30 Resubmission
9.13 Major revision required. The first reviewer accepted the revised manuscript, but the second reviewer rejected it. The reason for rejection was a single word used in the paper, and they recommended a complete revision of the entire manuscript. Everyone who read the rejection reason found it absurd, laughable, and frustrating. We explained in detail the reason for using that word and provided the Oxford definition.
10.1 Resubmission
10.3 Rejected. Upon receiving the news and seeing the rejection reason, we felt extremely frustrated and angry. It made us want to vomit blood, and we almost had a heart attack. The reason stated that our article lacked academic ideas and failed to cite references for experimental details. The second reviewer seemed determined to prevent us from getting published. It's disgusting. Now we have to start all over again, and every day is filled with anxiety. It feels like there's a constant pressure on our hearts. It's really frustrating to encounter such a reviewer.