一刀倾城 2022-12-10

It is not easy for Science Bulletin to cause so much controversy. It is undeniable that some papers in certain disciplines are indeed of low quality. However, the majority of papers in the field of geoscience can maintain the professional standard of being in the top tier of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I hope that domestic journals represented by Sci Bull can continue to improve and become better.

luofeiyu 2022-12-06

A clearer way to express your story is: your article cannot be published in excellent journals abroad, so you can only submit it to a domestic popular journal.

苏格拉底君 2022-11-16

Here is my submission process for reference:
22.5.1, submitted
22.5.2, under review (presumably by the editorial department)
22.5.8, under review (possibly sent for peer review)
22.7.3, comments from three reviewers received
22.8.5, revised, under review
22.8.16, minor revision
22.9.6, revised, under review
22.9.12, accepted
22.9.19, editorial department email for proofreading
22.9.23, pre-proof online
22.9.30, proofs stage
22.10.3, online proofreading submission
22.10.7, proof online
22.10.15, email notification for final check
22.10.30, published

苏格拉底君 2022-11-16

Objective evaluation, because my application for NSP was rejected, I became disheartened and after careful consideration, I decided not to pin my hopes on Europe and America, and resolutely submitted to Science Bulletin. Three international reviewers provided detailed revision comments, greatly improving the quality of the paper. After acceptance, the editor was also very responsible, repeatedly proofreading and paying attention to every punctuation mark. We must believe in Chinese journals and believe that in the future, with the efforts of authors, reviewers, and journals, our own journals will definitely be pushed onto the international stage and we will have control over our discourse, instead of blindly pursuing NSP from Europe and America.

Chemelec 2022-11-14

Rejected without review, reason being insufficient height.

期待顶刊 2022-11-12

The main issue is receiving a small amount, having many connections, there's no way around it, quite impressive.

苏卿云 2022-09-07

The submission of the sub-journal was rejected and rejected. After being killed, the boss directly asked to submit to Science Bulletin. It was done in an extremely fast manner.
Although many people in China do not recognize this journal, in our group, articles that have been rejected by top journals in recent years will be submitted to Science Bulletin. I have to say that the boss has foresight. I didn't expect the impact factor to be so high this year. I used to think it was a loss to submit to Science Bulletin, but now I feel like I've gotten a bargain. Many foreign journals also start by using impact factors to enhance the quality of their articles, and the articles will get better over time.

前秦君 2022-08-30

Did you repair it again after the major repair?

JTBATTERY 2022-08-19

Posted one article at the beginning of the month, but received a slow notification of not being sent for review after 10 days.

luofeiyu 2022-08-07

Suggestion to suspend publication, to reduce a little loss for the Chinese academic community.

节节高 2022-07-24

Nature Communications publishes about 7,000 articles per year, Science Advances publishes over 2,000, and PNAS publishes over 3,000. Our journal only has 200 articles, which clearly indicates a lack of sources. Moreover, we need to maintain a high citation rate, as our impact is significantly lower compared to the three aforementioned comprehensive journals. Domestic journals should progress step by step and not aim too high. Blindly pursuing a high impact factor will only result in disdain from the academic community...

节节高 2022-07-24

You can tell by looking at all the negative reviews and low scores that everyone has given to this publication. Don't blindly defend it just because we have published this article...

FrankPub 2022-07-22

Um... I noticed that in recent years, the self-citation rate has been decreasing while the number of publications has been increasing. Although the changes are not very significant, they seem to contradict your description.

icepoloz 2022-07-22

I submitted an article earlier this year, but it was directly rejected by the editorial department. So, I switched and submitted it to a journal with an impact factor of 16+. After major revisions, it has been accepted. Even if the impact factor is now 20+, it shouldn't be rejected for review altogether. (They probably didn't want engineering papers, fearing that the citation rate of such papers may not be high enough.)

节节高 2022-07-21

Please refer to his previous years' impact factor yourself. Generally, the impact factor is increased by having a low publication volume, which leads to insufficient overall influence. At the same time, increasing the impact factor through short communications that only count the numerator without considering the denominator is taking advantage of a loophole in the policy. They are quite skilled at it, haha.

FrankPub 2022-07-21

I think the self-citation rate is quite low. How can you tell if it's a forced citation? And how can you identify fabricated data?

节节高 2022-07-21

Now, supporting domestic journals feels like deviating from the right path, relying on fraud and forced citations to blindly elevate the impact factor. This journal is the epitome of it all, purely for the amusement of Chinese people, with poor international influence. The number of readers for articles here is almost negligible, as evident from the fact that over 80% of contributions are from Chinese authors. Foreigners hardly read or submit to these journals. The quality of the articles published is extremely disappointing, which is why even the Chinese Academy of Sciences is now hesitant to use impact factor rankings...

Thuamr 2022-07-03

Four or five years, the impact factor increased from 0 to 20, doubling each year, from 10 to 20. It's too excessive, too obvious. Sharing citation tasks, basic standards for researchers are disregarded. It's truly frightening to think about.

icepoloz 2022-07-03

Instant rejection, the reason being that it cannot attract the interest of a wide range of readers. (Actually, it is because it is considered to be too focused on engineering and lacks sufficient citation rates). I will never submit to this journal again, and instead switched to a journal called "if 16+" which accepted it after major revisions.

ZJUCheny 2022-07-03

2022.06.21 submit
2022.06.22 under review (similar to Joule, should be edited for initial review)
2022.07.01 rejected without review

The submission process of domestic journals is really exhausting, not even getting reviewed, making me doubt the quality of my manuscript. I probably won't submit again in the near future.

ZJUCheny 2022-06-30

May I ask what is the current status of your manuscript?

evayfang 2022-06-17

Foreign institutions invest less in this magazine, and it is estimated that only a few foreigners who invest in this magazine were invited by certain individuals. This magazine has also been in existence for over a decade. Unfortunately, this is the typical mode of operation for Chinese-run publications, with a heavy emphasis on networking within a specific circle.

Tang Jiuhan 2022-06-07

To be honest...

hynixwu 2022-05-22

I have already submitted and been rejected. To avoid any misunderstandings, I suggest that the author carefully read the guidelines.

Based on my speculation, the submission process is as follows:
After submission, it is first reviewed by the scientific editors and executive editors, and at this stage, the status is "under review". I remained in this stage for about 4 working days, and then the status changed to "draft" and was rejected.
If there is no response after submitting for more than a week, it can be assumed that it has been sent for external review.

This is just my personal experience, and I am sharing it for reference.

hynixwu 2022-05-22

All submissions are initially evaluated carefully by the scientific editors and executive editors. If the editors do not consider them suitable, they will be returned to the authors before undergoing peer-review, usually within 3-5 working days. Manuscripts that pass the initial review will be assigned to associate editors and then sent to qualified peer reviewers. The editors will strive to make decisions on these papers within 4 weeks of the submission date.

QRR1984 2022-05-19

Recently, there has been a significant trend of cliquishness. Those who are not part of the clique are not welcome to submit and their work will not be reviewed. Furthermore, this journal has a different citation format compared to other journals, which makes it more difficult to make changes.

想想读博 2022-05-11

Is there any senior brother who can talk about it? How many days does it take for the review? It has been under review for many days already, what's the situation? Will there be any changes in the status if it is reviewed?

会飞的豆豆子 2022-05-05

I hope the journal will thrive and improve!

penguin 2022-04-16

This journal claims to be a comprehensive journal, but in reality, it mostly publishes popular articles in the field of materials science, and the quality of these articles is quite average. Additionally, there are some issues with the impact factor algorithm of this journal. The actual citation counts for articles and reviews are not very high, but this journal publishes many other types of articles, such as short communications. These articles are not considered in the denominator when calculating the journal's impact factor, but their citation counts are included in the numerator. This leads to a higher average citation count for this journal. Furthermore, considering the low publication volume of this journal, its impact factor is not very reliable. Overall, the prospects for this journal are not very promising in the long run.

cherryshoen 2022-01-23

This magazine claims to have the same level as PNAS, but the quality of the reviewers is very low. They rejected the paper with the reason being, "you confirmed that 3 duplicates were performed for each experiment, which is not common considering the long trial period and the high expense for those experiments, such as metabolic-cage, antibody-treatment, HFD feeding, etc." I didn't have the courage to tell them that our laboratory never hesitates to repeat experiments even if they are costly. I suspect these reviewers are from small laboratories that probably never repeat experiments, so I don't know how reliable their articles are.