CEMENT & CONCRETE COMPOSITES

My main research direction is composite materials, and I am not very familiar with concrete field journals myself. I collaborated with another teacher at the school who works on concrete-related topics to write an article. The quality of the article is better than Part B standards, and although the experimental data is average, it is highly innovative. Since there are very few concrete-related articles in CST and Part A, my collaborator said that this journal has a great influence in the field of concrete. After looking at the relevant papers in the journal, I feel that it is quite similar. Although neither of us are big names in the industry, we decided to give it a try.

The article was submitted in September last year, and after the initial review, it required major and minor revisions. However, the article went through multiple rounds of revisions and was not accepted until May this year, living up to its reputation of taking about half a year for submission. Actually, the speed of the editors is quite fast. They generally send the manuscript for review within a week of receiving it, and after revisions, it is sent for review again within a week. However, the time given to the reviewers is too ample, taking several months. If you are in a rush to write grants or apply for scholarships, it is advised to be cautious in submitting to this journal. In the end, it did not delay the application time for graduate school, and it seems that the influence of the concrete field is indeed greater than Part B, which can be considered a good result.

As one of the top two journals in the field of concrete, CCC, it is a great honor to have an article accepted. I would like to thank Editor Nemkumar Banthia for his serious and responsible attitude. The entire process took one week with the editor, one and a half months for initial review, and a total of two reviewers. After major revisions, the revised article was resubmitted half a month later and underwent a second review for 40 days. Overall, the process was relatively fast, and the reviewers were highly professional. Their feedback greatly helped improve the quality of the article. As long as the responses were detailed and addressed each point, there was a high likelihood of acceptance after the second review. The timeline is as follows:

12/20/2021: Submitted to journal
12/22/2021: With editor
12/28/2021: Under review
02/4/2022: Decision in process
02/7/2022: Major revision
02/23/2022: Revision submitted to journal
02/24/2022: With editor
02/25/2022: Under review
04/04/2022: Decision in process
04/05/2022: Accepted.