Science China-Chemistry

I feel that the work is well done and I have also proposed innovative points. I tried submitting to Angew, but the result was two rejections and one acceptance. Later, I decided not to submit to Chem. Commun and Org. Lett. I feel that although these two journals have a good reputation, I am not optimistic about their future development. It is better to invest in SCC (three reviewers agreed to accept, their comments were also reasonable, and the editor gave major revisions). Moreover, the scientific research strength and influence of our country are increasing year by year. SCC is expected to exceed 10 next year. The position of top foreign journals is difficult to shake, after all, they have gone through many years of accumulation, establishing reputation and influence. In comparison, domestic journals have a slower start, and there are some problems that are unavoidable in the development process. However, personally, I still have confidence in the development of domestic journals. After all, the path of development is tortuous, but the overall trend is progress. As a basic scientific researcher, I believe that we should have more patience and confidence in domestic journals, and publish our proud achievements in the journals nurtured by our own country. This can be considered as contributing a small effort to the development of national scientific research.

The third project of my master's degree is about biomedical materials. I submitted it to AM for review but it was rejected. Then I submitted it to Angew, and it was rejected within seconds. After that, I submitted it to SCC, expecting it to at least reach the level of Small or similar journals. I didn't know much about domestic journals before, but since NSR and Bioactive Materials emerged, my advisor seems to have a special interest in investing in domestic journals. I took a look at SCC's articles, and the quality is comparable to top-tier journals in the first zone. Several prominent Chinese researchers have also published impressive ideas in SCC. However, the proportion of Chinese authors is too high, with a self-citation rate of 10%. The overall publication volume is also not high. Under the support of government funding in recent years, it might be considered acceptable, but the international influence is still too low. There is still a long way to go.