学不思蜀 2021-10-08

Hello, the article I submitted to JAP has already been accepted by two reviewers. Why was the editor looking for a third reviewer yesterday?

Doc_J 2021-09-28

6.18 submission - Submitted on June 18th
7.27 major revision - Major revisions requested on July 27th
8.16 revised - Revised on August 16th
9.6 minor revision - Minor revisions requested on September 6th
9.12 revised - Revised on September 12th
9.14 accepted - Accepted on September 14th

Regarding the aspect of optoacoustic coupling, both reviewers were very professional and examined the paper meticulously. They pointed out even minor issues that I had overlooked and provided constructive feedback that improved the article to a certain extent. There was a small incident where an article was submitted to JAP for review after more than 20 days.

学不思蜀 2021-09-25

The manuscript was submitted on September 2nd, and the speed is still very fast. One advantage of this journal is that it announces every status of the manuscript. It has passed the initial editorial review and entered the expert review stage. I hope it will be approved in the review.

tyrock 2021-08-25

The submission experience of JAP is very good, and the changes in status can be checked in a timely manner. The speed is also very fast, the first review took 26 days, it took two weeks to make revisions, and the second review was directly accepted in 11 days.

树的发展趋势 2021-07-07

I am very happy that my first SCI paper was accepted by JAP. There were two reviewers, one accepted it directly, while the other provided strict comments. The editor also gave some minor suggestions. After three weeks of difficult revisions, I nervously submitted the paper and the response letter, still wondering if I could satisfy the strict reviewer. To my surprise, it was accepted directly after three days. It seems that the revised version was not sent to the reviewer again, maybe the editor thought that person was unreasonable (?). I am grateful to the editor for their keen judgment.

小桥123 2021-05-07

Is there a specific template for submitting articles to this journal?

gdslily 2021-05-06

1.28 Submission
2.19 Received reviewer comments, two reviewers, major revisions, both reviewers were very professional, and their questions were very specific.
3.12 Returned the first revised draft
3.29 Received reviewer comments, both reviewers were mostly satisfied with the revisions, but minor adjustments were still needed.
4.20 Returned the second revised draft
5.04 Received feedback, accepted for publication
Overall impression: The editor's response time was fast, the review process was fast, and the reviewers were relatively professional.

SZU xuning 2021-04-29

Long time no see, submitting one paper to two places is not an academic misconduct? I'm speechless.

opticalnoob 2021-03-31

A total of three reviews were conducted over a period of three months. In the initial review, one minor revision and one rejection were given by the editor. In the second review, the reviewer felt that the language proficiency was not up to par and recommended a minor revision. Finally, in the third review, almost every sentence was rewritten and the paper was accepted. The whole process, from submission to acceptance, took nearly 90 days, which is neither long nor short. However, the efficiency of the editorial department was quite high as it only took three days to find reviewers and decisions were made within a day.

ShawnLiu1223 2021-03-08

Can you translate the following text into English: "一稿两投还有得洗？我怎么觉得这位兄弟是民科？"

Translation: "Can you submit the same work to two places? How come I feel like this person is a pseudo-scientist?"

newsnews 2021-02-06

The initial review process of the editorial department is a bad system, and the immediate rejection is based on the level of the author's affiliation.
How did the submission of one article to two journals become a moral issue? It is clearly an overbearing clause of the editorial department. Why is it not a moral issue to apply to multiple schools for admission?
If the editor makes a wrong decision, if the chief editor makes a wrong decision, they must adhere to the original judgment, which is a common practice in international journals. Which of these moral issues is more serious: the moral issue of the editorial department, or the issue of one article being submitted to two journals? Should the academic community address the moral issues of the editorial department?
For a perpetual motion machine manuscript, you can immediately reject it because you understand thermodynamics. But for a manuscript questioning relativity, you are not qualified to immediately reject it based on everyone's belief in relativity. Because you don't understand relativity. Rejection needs to be made by someone who understands relativity, and you have to make the author convinced. (There was a similar debate online recently)
Science is about questioning. Some journals openly declare in their guidelines that they will not review articles that question commonly accepted things, claiming that it is too time-consuming. What is your journal for? Can it only sing praises? ScienceNature passes it on to specialized journals, but specialized journals have the same mindset as ScienceNature.
Truly innovative articles are not dared to be reviewed by ScienceNatureCell or specialized journals. The thinking of top journals is directly inherited by specialized journals.

海森饱 2021-01-12

2020.09.22 Submission
2020.10.30 Major revision
2020.11.18 Revised submission
2020.12.04 Accepted
The entire process took 72 days, and the review speed was quite fast. The journal is pretty good, although the impact factor is a bit low, the reviewers are very professional. I hope the journal will continue to improve.