期刊名
Applied Sciences-Basel

APPL SCI-BASEL

ISSN / eISSN
2076-3417 / 2076-3417
目标和范围
Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417) provides an advanced forum on all aspects of applied natural sciences. It publishes reviews, research papers and communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation or experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary electronic material.
研究方向

化学:综合

工程:综合

材料科学:综合

CiteScore
4.50 查看趋势图
CiteScore 学科排名
类别 分区 排名
Engineering - General Engineering Q1 #73/302
Engineering - Instrumentation Q2 #42/136
Engineering - Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes Q2 #32/92
Engineering - Computer Science Applications Q2 #287/792
Engineering - General Materials Science Q2 #199/453
Engineering - Process Chemistry and Technology Q3 #35/68
Web of Science 核心合集
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
Indexed -
类别 (Journal Citation Reports 2023) 分区
CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE Q3
ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE Q2
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE Q3
PHYSICS, APPLIED - SCIE Q2
H-index
23
出版国家或地区
SWITZERLAND
出版商
MDPI (Basel, Switzerland)
出版周期
Semi-monthly
出版年份
2011
年文章数
12741
Open Access
YES
通讯方式
ST ALBAN-ANLAGE 66, BASEL, SWITZERLAND, CH-4052
认证评论
注: 认证评论选取于全球各个学术评论平台和社交媒体。
Very professional and efficient, quickly publishing their comprehensive research results and receiving widespread attention. The specialty of this journal lies in completing two rounds of review (including revisions) in just around 30 days, providing a relatively short time for reviewers. After all, those who have served as reviewers understand that it is often considered normal to have more than a month to review, and they often put it aside after confirming the review (self-reflection here), which reduces the efficiency of the scientific research community. In reality, the "true" review time is at most one week.

There were three reviewers this time, two of whom gave very positive evaluations, while the other provided nearly 20 suggestions, leading to significant revisions. This process was a bit tiring, and the author also had a tight schedule for making the modifications.

At the same time, I would like to express my personal opinion. I used to be a fan of traditional journals, but even among the top journals in the industry, including those in the first and second tiers of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, there are many irregularities in the review process. For example, reviewers may upload incorrect review comments (completely unrelated to the article), editors may make decisions directly without proper revisions, and reviewers may lack professionalism and do a perfunctory job (even to the extent of being unreachable for reevaluation).

Regarding the issue of publication fees for open-access journals, in fact, I may not have noticed it before, but I have found that many colleagues have published in some traditional top-tier journals that I carefully examined and discovered to be open-access as well. This means that these journals have also opened up OA choice. But, oh well, as expected, well-known journals like Elsevier charge much higher publication fees for OA compared to MDPI!
2022-01-02
These reviewers and editors of this journal are playing games with their attitudes and are not responsible.
Submitted on 16th March 2020; First revision on 2nd May 2020, one major revision, one minor revision, one acceptance with major revision comments in a highlighted PDF, and then nothing happened, which was the first time encountering this; Made serious modifications and after receiving feedback, the reviewer for the minor revision stated acceptance, while the reviewer for the major revision commented: Thank you for addressing one/two comments. However, there were many other important things authors just ignored; Made further revisions and the major revision reviewer's comment was: The authors still take the comments for granted; Finally, rejected.
Thinking about what happened, I contacted the journal to see if I could change reviewers. Their response was: We think your article is very good, but there are still some minor issues, so continue revising and we will assign it to the same reviewer again. I made further revisions for another week, but it was still rejected. By June 28th, it had been 3 and a half months wasted.
Later, I submitted to another journal and unexpectedly it was accepted within a month (mainly because it was free and had a similar impact factor).
In January 2021, I received an email from this journal asking if I had considered re-submitting.
Do you think I might consider submitting again?
2021-07-13

Publish scientific posters with Peeref

Peeref publishes scientific posters from all research disciplines. Our Diamond Open Access policy means free access to content and no publication fees for authors.

Learn More

Ask a Question. Answer a Question.

Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.

Get Started