Oyovan 2022-04-13

Brother, I also encountered the same situation. Did you solve it? How did you solve it?

SCI_Paper 2022-04-11

Hello, for specific solutions, you can refer to the reply in post #151.
Additionally, you can carefully review the comments on letpub regarding this journal. The comments and messages about the chief editor M.W. are all genuine.
Many people have encountered similar problems, and there are various case studies available for reference in the comments.

Scramber 2022-04-11

Original text: 楼主，问题怎么解决的？我也遇到这个问题了

Translation: OP, how did you solve the problem? I'm also encountering the same issue.

ccrhhu 2022-04-10

2022/01/05 submitted to journal
2022/02/22 major revision
2022/04/10 accept
The first review took over a month, but the editor tortured us for another month. The comments about the editor are all true. Before submitting, one should consider the format changes that are truly unreasonable. If you want to be accepted, you have to meticulously adhere to the editor's formatting requirements without any deviations. It's really necessary to vent and leave a comment.

sbushsu 2022-04-10

How can I modify the graphical abstract? Are there any size requirements?

sianmao 2022-04-08

2021/11/21 Submitted to Journal
2021/11/22 With Editor
2021/11/28 Under Review
2021/12/28 Major Revision
2022/2/22 Revised/With Editor/Under Review
2022/2/23 Under Review
2022/3/2 Minor Revision
2022/3/9 Revised Submit/With Editor
2022/3/12 Accept
2022/3/15 Online

The review process was quite fast. It seems that the first review took exactly one month. The reviewers were very professional and raised a lot of questions. The editor-in-chief had strict requirements, including limiting the title to 10 words or less and specific demands for the coordinate scales in the images.

SCI_Paper 2022-04-04

Before submitting it for review, I encountered the situation that the OP mentioned. The editor-in-chief, M. Wiercigroch, asked many strange questions that were basically unrelated to the content of the article. After making the necessary revisions as requested, I sent an email to the editor to let them review the modifications. However, within less than 10 minutes, I received a reply that made me seriously doubt whether they had even looked at it. The email roughly stated that the manuscript has improved but can still be further improved. However, it did not mention specifically where modifications are needed or how to improve it. It was really frustrating. Later, I made some random changes and finally submitted it for review. However, it is also possible that it will be assigned to an editor other than M. Wiercigroch.

中华田园 2022-04-03

May I ask how long it took to get the results in the end?

origami 2022-04-02

Submitted in the summer vacation of 2019, on the day of submission, Marian Wiercigroch directly stated that the manuscript was either a draft or not acceptable in terms of its theoretical part. It was advised to make modifications before resubmission. The supervisor angrily responded via email, listing all the previously published articles and citation counts of the research group on JMS (Journal of Mathematical Sciences). As a result, the manuscript was submitted to a different journal.

中华田园 2022-04-01

2021.12.25 Submitted
2021.01.05 Under review
2022.03.02 Required Reviews Completed
2022.03.02 Under review
2022.03.19 Major revised
2022.03.26 Submitted
2022.03.26 Under review

Translated:

2021.12.25 Submitted
2021.01.05 Under review
2022.03.02 Required Reviews Completed
2022.03.02 Under review
2022.03.19 Major revised
2022.03.26 Submitted
2022.03.26 Under review

SCI_Paper 2022-04-01

Despite going through several rounds of revisions, it has finally been submitted for review. However, the editor-in-chief, Marian Wiercigroch, is not a qualified editor.
First, the paper was rejected and the author was instructed to contact him via private email. He provided many irrelevant suggestions, such as: 1. Adding at least 60 references; 2. Limiting the title of the paper to within 10 words; 3. Expanding the titles of figures (to be very long); 4. Controlling the main scale of the coordinate axes of the images to 4-6, and removing the sub-scale; 5. The conclusion should not be written in a list format, but rather divided into several paragraphs; 6. Before entering a subsection, there should be a separate statement consisting of 1-2 paragraphs. And so on... I won't list them all one by one.
The above experience is for everyone's reference. In conclusion, if your submission falls into the hands of Marian Wiercigroch, consider yourself unlucky!

zhengzzzz 2022-03-28

March 27 major revision.

SCI_Paper 2022-03-27

The manuscript has been assigned to the chief editor, Marian Wiercigroch, and sure enough, it encountered the situation everyone was talking about! If you are willing to improve, I can provide some comments upon request. Please email me at m.wiercigroch@abdn.ac.uk with the manuscript number in the subject of your email. May I ask if this is to contact via email? Also, is there a possibility of resubmission? Please let me know, thank you!

西西__ 2022-03-24

The revised manuscript for the second review has been under review for 15 days, and there is still no news. I don't know what's going on and I'm wondering if I should remind them (/ㄒoㄒ)/~~. Are there any experienced individuals who have had a similar experience? Can you give some advice?

鱼皮 2022-03-14

Two articles have been accepted, and I recently submitted another one which was sent for review on the same day. After 17 days, I received the feedback and am currently making revisions. The journal's review process is extremely fast, and the impact factor is steadily increasing. I hope it can maintain its position in the top tier. Wishing you continued success!

西西__ 2022-03-01

The first round of revisions had two reviewers, and it has been two weeks since the revised manuscript was returned with no response. May I ask if there will be additional reviewers for the second round of revisions? Will there be a change in reviewers?

西西__ 2022-03-01

In the first round of revision, two reviewers were assigned. It has been two weeks since I submitted the revised manuscript, but I haven't received any updates. I would like to ask if there will be additional reviewers in the second round of revision.

zhengzzzz 2022-02-24

February 17th submitted
February 21st under review

Doc_J 2022-02-14

11.3 submission, 11.4 rejected by the editor due to formatting issues.
11.25 resubmitted after strict formatting modifications, 12.19 received extensive revisions based on feedback from five reviewers, with a total of over 40 suggestions.
Two months were given for revisions, and the revised manuscript was submitted on 1.12 and accepted on 1.22.
————————————————————————————
Overall, the peer review process was relatively fast, and the reviewer's comments significantly improved the quality of the article. It was fortunate that the article coincided with the upgrade of IJMS to the 1st quartile. It was still a good outcome.

marian 2022-01-29

In general, MW will first check the author's references. For those he doesn't like, he will directly reject the template within 5 minutes, claiming that there are too many submissions (>5k/year) to handle and it is not serious. For some manuscripts, MW will provide his personal email for you to contact privately and make revisions before resubmission (in order to further improve the rejection rate, submission volume, and citation of articles newly accepted by IJMS, thus manipulating the data), instead of providing any direct academic suggestions and opinions on the work. In short, MW is not a serious scholar or qualified editor.

wo 2022-01-28

The manuscript was handled by M.W, and I can only admit my bad luck.

wo 2022-01-28

This M.W has tricked me several times.

keeper 2021-12-26

Brother, how can I create a summary of icons?

远方的天空 2021-12-12

6.23 with editor
6.24 under review
10.7 major revision
12.4 submitted revised manuscript
12.5 under review
12.9 accept
The journal is very good. I have been reading articles in this journal. The suggestions provided by the three reviewers were constructive. The first review process was a bit slow, but the second review process was very fast. I wish the journal continued success in its future endeavors.

Arthur123 2021-12-08

Hello, was your article also reviewed by the chief editor M. Wiercigroch?

Sven Ren 2021-12-06

The manuscript review was very fast. They provided feedback within 10 days. However, it required major revisions, so I took my time and only returned it after 2 months. It was accepted 20 days later. Once again, I would like to commend the efficiency of the editor.

Javon 2021-12-05

In the past few years, it was not so difficult to submit articles to this journal. However, it feels like it has become much harder, especially in the past year. It used to be normal to have articles sent for review, but now it feels like the probability of getting a review is just as low as before... This is a specific manifestation of the turmoil in scientific research.

小摩的 2021-12-04

Brother, I am also facing the same situation as you. What is the main issue here?

Daffy 2021-11-10

The submission would be welcome but it is yet to reach the journal quality bar in terms of the depth of the analysis and presentation. However, if you significantly improve, I would welcome a resubmission.

Similar to your situation, it was rejected immediately by the chief editor, which was disappointing.

Daffy 2021-11-10

Novice submission~
On November 9, 2021, at 16:02, I submitted my manuscript and received a rejection letter from the editorial department just 20 minutes later~~~
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Mechanical Sciences.
While the submission is appreciated, it does not currently meet the journal's standards in terms of analysis depth and presentation. However, if you make significant improvements, I would welcome a resubmission.
I just checked, and it was sent to Professor Marian Wiercigroch, the chief editor of IJMS. The rejection was so fast T_T
Has anyone else experienced this?