cctrt1984 2022-06-29

This journal hasn't reached an impact factor of 10. It has been around for a thousand years. Regardless of how much RSC boasts about it being a flagship journal, many schools do not recognize it if it hasn't reached an impact factor of 10. It is even considered inferior to Green Chem and JMCA. It is unfriendly towards authors, often rejecting submissions without review. Therefore, I won't submit to it or cite its articles, and I will avoid referencing articles from Chem Sci.

李稳稳冲冲冲 2022-06-04

It has been 12 days since the submission. I hope to receive some good news. I submitted using the new system recommended on the homepage, but I haven't been able to see the status after submitting. It is making me anxious, and I hope the journal can improve this.

阿远远远远 2022-03-28

Replying to the previous commenter, with a name like yours, you can only come here to comment and seek some presence.

我是谁aa 2022-03-26

My experience is almost identical to yours.

阿远远远远 2022-03-24

Posted on December 19, 2021, and then reviewed for six or seven days. During this period, there were switches between editing and reviewing statuses.
Received major revisions on February 2, 2022 (the second day of the Lunar New Year): Accepted one minor revision and rejected the other, but the reasons given were related to simple language issues. Apart from requesting additional proof of a molecular rotation experiment, the final decision was to go through major revisions and seek a third reviewer's judgment.
Returned the reviewer's comments on March 9, 2022.
Status changed to "with peer review" on March 16, 2022.
Status changed to "with editor" on March 22, 2022.
Accepted on March 24, 2022. The second reviewer was satisfied with all the modifications and gave a rating of 9, and the editor recommended it for the cover.
Tonight, when I saw the message from the teacher saying it was accepted, I kept asking myself if it was real. Since the submission day, I have bookmarked the official website on my mobile browser and open it every morning when I wake up and before returning to the dormitory at night to check the status. I have been thinking about it day and night, hoping that CS will continue to improve! Finally, I would like to thank Jim McCusker for editing and for persisting with major revisions and the final decision despite the acceptance and rejection.

我是谁aa 2022-03-22

My article has had a difficult journey. It was rejected after being reviewed by Science, with two positive and one negative review. Later, it was not even sent for review by Nature or its sub-journals, and Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) did not even provide a reason for rejection. I feel that the decision to send for review or not solely depends on whether the editor likes it or not. It is unreliable to judge the quality of a journal solely based on whether it sends for review or not.

On August 22, 2021, I submitted the article to Chemical Science for review. On December 7, I received major revisions, with two positive and one negative review. The negative reviewer was very unpleasant and made irrelevant comments, but the editor still requested major revisions.

On February 17, 2022, one month after submitting the revised article, it was reviewed by the three reviewers again. Two of them considered it acceptable, but the negative reviewer remained negative. Therefore, the editor sought a fourth reviewer, who raised some questions. However, this reviewer seemed suspicious and suggested transferring the article to PCCP (Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics) with a score of 3.8.

On March 18, 2022, two weeks after completing the revisions, the fourth reviewer agreed to accept the article. Finally, it was accepted on the 18th.

My article is in the field of physical chemistry, while the editor specializes in organic chemistry and is completely unfamiliar with my work. It seems that the editor simply liked our work. Since this was our first submission to Chemical Science and the first revision, there should not have been any issues related to insider connections.

C罗与力宏 2022-03-11

Here I give a counterexample. I didn't submit to JACS and Angew, but Chemical Science was reviewed in 6 days. I will share the results when they are available.

我是你爹 2022-03-08

"And there is still a long way to go between angewandte and JACS."

巫师 2022-02-08

May I ask, when I was submitting my work, I encountered this problem: "We still need some more information from you before you continue. All authors must be valid." What does this mean? I have checked it several times but still don't know where the mistake is.

二七三一 2022-01-06

Haha, what a grudge this is. Anyone who does catalysis knows that the quality of ACS Catalysis articles is far superior to that of CS catalysis on average. Insisting on saying "because it is a comprehensive journal, it is better than specialized journals." This kind of logic and cognitive ability basically says goodbye to the academic circle.

大内高手 2021-12-28

There shouldn't be any problem, but the second review is still a bit slow. It will take at least more than half a month.

w0 2021-12-23

It has been almost a month since I returned for repair, and I still haven't received any updates. I am very worried because the Christmas holiday is approaching, and it will delay another two weeks. I feel sad.

fulimanapple 2021-12-20

A review period of over a month, and one reviewer only wrote a sentence saying that it was not suitable for the journal. The second reviewer got all the metals of the compounds mentioned in the article wrong, and there was only one metal mentioned in the article. It is evident that they did not take it seriously. Let's not even talk about the scientific value of the journal, the attitude problem really needs to be improved urgently! As for this kind of mistake, the associate editor Christopher Hunter didn't say anything, which shows a very careless attitude.

大内高手 2021-12-20

The main research focus is the development of tools for protein-protein interactions and their applications. It was submitted on September 6, 2021, and after one week, it was under review with Carsten Schultz as the editor. Approximately two months later, the first round of review comments were received. Both reviewers had positive opinions and believed that the work had a certain level of impact. The editor requested major revisions but did not specify a deadline for resubmission, only stating "as soon as possible." This made us quite anxious, but we managed to complete the experiments in three weeks. The revised version was resubmitted on November 30, 2021, and after a week, the status changed to "in peer review." The second round of review took another half month, and on the morning of December 20, 2021, we received an email accepting the paper. It felt challenging, and the reviewers were quite professional. It was the first time submitting to Chemical Science, and we hope that Chemical Science continues to improve and become a top journal soon.

科研小渣子 2021-12-02

The difficulty of submitting to this journal is quite high, requiring strong innovative work. There are relatively few submissions from Chinese researchers, so I hope everyone can submit more.

laokeyan 2021-11-04

Non-double universities, making organic fluorescent materials, the boss is not a big shot either, accepts major and minor repairs after overhaul!

末班车 2021-10-11

The first time I encountered fifteen reviewers, two of them rejected my submission while the rest requested revisions. However, due to an error on the editor's part, they forgot to include the comments from one of the reviewers. Despite resubmitting the revised manuscript to that reviewer, I was ultimately rejected because I didn't have time to respond. It can only be said that I feel helpless towards this editor.

zjd 2021-08-17

As a journal during the RSC period, its positioning is basically on par with Angew and JACS. In the past two years, Angew and JACS have accepted a large number of hot articles in the field of materials and chemical biology. Chemical Science mainly focuses on receiving articles in the field of chemistry, which is quite rare.

I just submitted an article, and it took about 40 days from submission to acceptance (with a week spent on major revisions). The editorial processing efficiency is very high. The content of the article is purely theoretical electrochemistry (non-battery materials). In the past two years, it has been difficult for Angew and JACS to include such articles (number of accepted articles <5, all from prominent backgrounds).

I did not encounter the so-called "circle" issue. The reviewers in Chemical Science are very professional, and the questions they raised are very detailed and insightful. The review process is very thorough (even down to a lowercase/uppercase issue in the text or a sentence that may cause ambiguity). Overall, the efficiency and quality are good. I hope the journal will continue to improve.

极速蜗牛 2021-07-18

Thank you for your attention. I don't log in to this website very often, so sometimes I only come to check the reviews of the journal when I need to submit a contribution.
Here is the link to my article: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/SC/D0SC04782A#!divAbstract
Thank you again for your attention.

阿黄 2021-07-10

The quality of the article is average, far worse than JACS. Even organic articles are not as good as OL. There is a reason why the impact factor cannot exceed 10.

Zhu 2021-07-08

This year, while the impact factor of journals has generally increased, cs still hasn't surpassed 10. This is actually expected because not sending papers for review regularly hurts the journal's reputation, causing people to avoid citing it.

If it doesn't surpass 10, cs is just an ordinary journal, similar to joc. Many schools assess journals based on a threshold of 10, so a journal with an impact factor of 9.99 is considered the same as a journal with an impact factor of 1.0. Therefore, it is not worth wasting time on this journal.

Will cs ever reach the status of a prestigious journal? It has been 10 years since its establishment, and even green chemistry has surpassed 10.

科研民工007 2021-05-12

First time seeing such a disappointing magazine, one after another acceptance and rejection in the first round of review. The editor rejected the manuscript and asked for a resubmission, requiring revisions to be made according to the opinions of the reviewer who rejected it. It took a month to revise the manuscript and conduct additional experiments as requested by the reviewer. After resubmission, the editor assigned the same reviewer who rejected it in the first round. This time, the resubmission was delayed for two months and then directly rejected. I am very frustrated. 1. Couldn't the editor choose a different reviewer for the third round? 2. If the reviewer intended to reject the manuscript, why did they delay it for two months? It's really disappointing. The journal has caused unnecessary delays. There must be a reason why it can't reach the top 10. This is not just a complaint about not being accepted, but rather the overall efficiency is really subpar.

MWD 2021-04-26

After submission, I was urged twice during the process, and the editor sent it for review after a month and a half. There were three reviewers, with the last two agreeing to make revisions and accept it, while one rejected it. In the end, it was rejected. This was my first time submitting to this journal.

最爱苍茫 2021-04-11

2021.3.13 Submission
2021.3.16 Under Review
2021.4.1 Major Revision (One major revision, one minor revision)
2021.4.3 Submitting revised draft
2021.4.7 Under Review
2021.4.11 Accepted directly
The focus is on electrochemistry, with Vincent Artero as the editor. The boss is not a big shot in the field and does not engage in the face-based review process that others have mentioned. Keep up the good work, everyone! Publish more good articles!

小代 2021-03-05

Hello, OP! I am also interested in molecular dynamics simulation. Could you share your article with me?