Journal of Alloys and Compounds

I would like to share with everyone my difficult life journey. On October 29, 2021, I submitted to CEJ (Journal A). Three reviewers agreed to the revisions, while two rejected it and suggested submitting elsewhere. I then submitted to Carbon (Journal B), but was also advised to submit elsewhere. After that, I submitted to Nanoscale (Journal C), but it was rejected with a suggestion to submit elsewhere. I then submitted to Applied Surface Science (Journal D) and once again, I was advised to submit elsewhere. I then submitted to JIEC (Journal E) and received feedback from two reviewers. One recommended major revisions and the other provided seven questions that could be answered. However, the editor rejected my submission. I then submitted to Talanta (Journal F), but the editor stated that it did not fit the journal's scope. Next, I submitted to Materials Characterization (Journal G) and received feedback from two reviewers. One reviewer found it very interesting and asked a few questions, while the other rejected it. Unfortunately, the editor also rejected my submission. I then submitted to SPC (Journal H), and the editor suggested submitting elsewhere. I submitted again to International Ceramics (Journal I), and once again, it was advised to submit elsewhere. Currently, I have submitted to JAC (Journal J).

On April 22, 2022, I submitted my manuscript. On April 25, I received a response from the editor. On February 28, I received another response from the editor. On May 2, I was invited to submit additional materials for review. On May 3, the review was completed. On May 4, it was under review again. On May 4, the review was completed. On May 5, it was under review. On May 8, it was still under review. On May 14, the review was completed.

Have any of you ever encountered such a bizarre situation? During this period, my teacher even asked me to review a manuscript for JAC, which made me extremely anxious.

Article on the direction of catalysis in chemistry, after one major revision and one minor revision, it is finally accepted, providing everyone with some advice and reference.

Firstly, I think the speed of peer review is acceptable. After submission, the manuscript is sent for review within a week, and then the review results (major revision) are provided in about twenty days. After the revision, the second review results (minor revision) are returned in another twenty days, and then it is accepted after swift revision. Including the time for major revisions and experimental repairs, the entire cycle takes less than three months. I believe that the editor has handled it promptly, but the long waiting time is mainly due to the opinions of multiple reviewers. However, compared to some journals under RSC recently, this speed is still incomparable. Some journals in our laboratory that are submitted to RSC can even provide review results within ten days, and if lucky, an article can be published within forty days from submission.

The second point is about the reviewers. As mentioned earlier, this journal now prefers to have more reviewers. My article was reviewed by five reviewers, and the editor also provided personal opinions. Therefore, the workload of replying to the reviewers' comments is quite heavy. I have to say that the opinions given by the editor are fair and crucial, proving that the editor has carefully read the manuscript and is very professional. However, some reviewers did not carefully read the article before providing their comments. Some asked us to provide supporting data that already existed, some distorted the original argument of the article and then asked for our opinions, and some asked us to cite their own articles in the theoretical analysis section, even though the theoretical explanations in their own articles were nonsensical, which caused us a lot of difficulties.