miura 2021-07-11

It seems like I cannot reply to specific comments, so I can only say it here. I'm not sure if you can see it.

After being rejected for the first time, I sought many opinions online. Based on the template provided by YAN, I mainly refined the contribution part of the introduction. It is crucial to clearly state the work done and the contributions made in this field and their significance. After making the modifications, I indeed felt that the previous introduction was lacking. Additionally, I increased the self-citations from 6 to 20. However, in the subsequent review, one reviewer suggested citing several of their articles. After including them, the ratio is now 24/55.

miura 2021-07-11

Update on progress:

4.20 Revision: I didn't expect the process from peer review to receiving feedback to only take one month. There were a total of two reviewers, luckily there were no requests for additional experiments or data. The first reviewer had 8 comments, suggesting acceptance. The second reviewer had a bunch of insignificant formatting issues and had no comments on the data.

4.30 Revision submitted.
5.26 Under review.
7.07 Revision: The second round of review had three reviewers, but the editor deleted the comments of the first reviewer, which I didn't see. The second reviewer simply suggested acceptance with one sentence. The third reviewer had 11 comments, which initially frightened me, making me think there was a major problem. However, after reading them, I realized they were just basic and simple mechanistic questions and did not question the data or experiments. It seemed like the reviewer was not an expert in my field of research.

Now, the response letter has been completed, and my supervisor is currently reviewing it. Overall, I feel that the feedback from both rounds of review has been positive. The fact that the editor kept the meaningless comment from one reviewer who only suggested acceptance in the second round feels like a positive signal. I hope that everything goes smoothly after submitting the revised manuscript.

360fighting 2021-07-03

What happened afterwards?

阿潘潘 2021-06-30

6.23 required reviews completed
6.29 required reviews completed
Ah, it has been three months, hoping for a good outcome.

chang0105 2021-06-28

What happened next? When will it be under review?

三眼花翎 2021-06-28

Original text: 楼主，我跟你情况一模一样，请问您后来怎么改的啊，结果怎么样

Translation: Original poster, my situation is exactly the same as yours. May I ask how you resolved it later? What was the result?

三眼花翎 2021-06-28

Original: 楼主，请问您第一次投稿秒拒后怎么修改的啊 我的也是秒拒，说是内容符合期刊，但是创新性不够，非常感谢

Translation:
OP, may I ask how did you modify your submission after being rejected in seconds? Mine was also rejected in seconds, they said the content was suitable for the journal, but lacked innovation. Thank you very much.

三眼花翎 2021-06-28

OP, may I ask how did you modify your submission after it was instantly rejected for the first time? Mine was also instantly rejected, saying that the content is suitable for the journal, but lacks innovation. Thank you very much.

三眼花翎 2021-06-28

Did you reapply later? My situation is the same as yours, I also received the same response.

360fighting 2021-06-24

How are things now?

qianqian360 2021-06-23

Three days after submission, the editor rejected the submission. The introduction section needs to highlight the innovative points, so it can be modified and resubmitted.

b10elieve 2021-06-18

Now it has changed to "under review".

阿潘潘 2021-06-17

Is there any old brother with the same experience? Is this strange state update always from the reviewer?

阿潘潘 2021-06-17

I submitted it at the end of March. It was under review on May 11th and May 13th. Required reviews were completed on June 1st. It was under review again on June 8th and June 9th. Required reviews were completed on June 16th and it was under review on June 17th. I cried. It feels like there are a lot of reviewers, and they are very strict. Seeing the comments earlier, it seems like there will be rejections for sure. My heart has already turned cold.

b10elieve 2021-06-16

Excuse me, does anyone have experience with being "under review" for a month and then receiving an invitation to be a reviewer? What could this status possibly mean? Approximately how long does it usually take to receive a decision letter? If any seniors are aware, please kindly inform me. Thank you.

dut_pfx 2021-05-31

I have had my paper reviewed by a reviewer, and the review number has reached 13. Before reaching a conclusion, I received 8 reviews. One was rejected and one was accepted, with 3 major revisions and 3 minor revisions. In the end, it was rejected. I feel that at least people should be given a chance to revise and explain.

Hardwork 2021-05-27

Same feeling as the original poster, it's complete nonsense.

丁丁小学渣 2021-05-21

Indeed, it cannot be denied that there is nepotism at play, considering that Editor-in-Chief Yan publishes over ten articles in AE every year. However, in terms of the quality of the manuscripts, it is unquestionably a top journal in the field of energy and fuels, with high demands from reviewers. Based on my personal experience as both an AE and ECM reviewer, the quality of ECM manuscripts is slightly lower, and the quality of reviewers is also inconsistent. On the other hand, AE manuscripts may be slightly inferior, lacking any chance of publication.

K168 2021-05-11

Submitted to Journal: Feb 23, 2021
With Editor: Feb 25, 2021
Under Review: Feb 28, 2021
Under Review: Mar 1, 2021
Under Review: Mar 10, 2021
Under Review: Mar 13, 2021
Required Reviews Completed: Mar 14, 2021
Decision in Process: Apr 3, 2021
Revise: Apr 4, 2021 [Need to submit revision by Apr 24]
Submitted to Journal: Apr 22, 2021
With Editor: Apr 23, 2021
Under Review: Apr 28, 2021
Required Reviews Completed: May 3, 2021
Decision in Process: May 5, 2021
Accept: May 6, 2021

Translation:
Submitted to Journal: Feb 23, 2021
With Editor: Feb 25, 2021
Under Review: Feb 28, 2021
Under Review: Mar 1, 2021
Under Review: Mar 10, 2021
Under Review: Mar 13, 2021
Required Reviews Completed: Mar 14, 2021
Decision in Process: Apr 3, 2021
Revise: Apr 4, 2021 [Need to submit revision by Apr 24]
Submitted to Journal: Apr 22, 2021
With Editor: Apr 23, 2021
Under Review: Apr 28, 2021
Required Reviews Completed: May 3, 2021
Decision in Process: May 5, 2021
Accept: May 6, 2021

李同学 2021-05-04

The editor Yan is indeed disgusting, and the journal's reputation is also poor now. We also dislike him a lot, but there is no need to emphasize that he is Chinese; he is just of Chinese descent. Criticizing him is enough, there is no need to disparage Chinese people.

小A 2021-04-21

It seems that there will be a rejection if there is any attempt to initiate.

Qcass 2021-04-20

I don't think so. In our group, Professor Wu is the associate editor of the journal, but very few of his students have actually published in this journal. The quality is very low, and it seems like anyone can get published just by having connections...

miura 2021-04-07

Translated text:
I submitted the paper on 3/11 and it was rejected by Yan within 2 days due to lack of innovation in the paper. I discussed it with my supervisor and he insisted on submitting it to AE. I also searched online and found that Yan, the editor-in-chief, tends to reject first-time submissions. It seems that increasing self-citations and emphasizing the introduction section is important (maybe that's why the impact factor is high). So, I modified the introduction and added many references related to AE. Now, 20 out of 50 references are from AE. I am sharing this information for everyone's reference.

After making the changes, I resubmitted the paper on 3/15.
On 3/16, I received a confirmation of submission.
On 3/17, it was with the editor.
On 3/19, it was passed to the associate editor.
As of 3/22, it is under review.

Overall, the editor's response time has been quite fast, without several weeks of being with the editor. I hope for a positive outcome since it represents several years of hard work during my doctoral studies.

斯坦福混混 2021-04-05

Rejected twice, revised twice and resubmitted. From the first submission to the third submission, it took a total of one year, and I am thrilled to have been accepted. It doesn't matter that I don't know the editor-in-chief; the process was indeed difficult.

伦敦蹦蹦猪 2021-03-31

Top-tier journals have very strict peer review processes. The reviewers and editors provide highly professional and insightful suggestions, greatly enhancing the quality of academic writing and professional competence.

发文章有用否 2021-03-31

The editor-in-chief is Chinese and has a lot of connections. If you know someone whose name is mentioned by him, it is easy to find two familiar reviewers who will quickly approve your manuscript. However, if you don't know anyone, he will find a bunch of reviewers to figure out how to reject your submission. Sometimes they even reject the manuscript after reviewing it, claiming that it does not fit the scope of the journal. I discussed the reputation of this journal with colleagues and it is not very good. The impact factor is inflated and the recognition is average. I have been waiting for six months for my submission, and there have been six rounds of reviews. I regret submitting to this journal and I am considering withdrawing my manuscript.

Jiangong 2021-03-23

I just received an article that was submitted to me for communication. I won't go into the details of the entire submission process. Originally, I didn't allow them to submit to this journal because I heard it was somewhat shady. The editor-in-chief has connections with many influential people in China, and the quality of the articles varies. They often cite their own work to increase their impact factor. Currently, the reputation is not very good, so everyone should be cautious about submitting to it.

霜云 2021-03-03

2021.1.31 Submission
2021.2.4 Under review
2021.3.3 Rejected
There were 9 reviewers, which was too excessive. 2 reviewers suggested rejection, 2 suggested minor revisions, one reviewer's comments were not addressed, and the remaining 4 suggested major revisions. Ultimately, the editor rejected the submission. Overall, the process was relatively fast, but the journal is strict and has many reviewers.

坏脾气的干饭王 2021-03-02

2020.08.26 First submission
2021.02.28 Accepted
During the process, there were three rounds of revisions, with a review period of three weeks each. The editor was patient and responsible, and all four reviewers provided very detailed and professional opinions. There were two major revisions and one minor revision during this period. It is indeed very happy to have the first paper published in a top journal. Best wishes to everyone for their academic achievements.
Thank you to all colleagues for their efforts in improving the quality of the paper!

dycxju 2021-01-20

2020.10.06 submit - Submitted on October 6, 2020
2020.10.08 with editor - Under review by the editor on October 8, 2020
2020.10.26 under review - Under review by the journal on October 26, 2020
2020.11.30 revise - Requested to revise on November 30, 2020
2020.12.15 revision submitted to journal - Revised version submitted to the journal on December 15, 2020
2021.12.18 under review - Under review by the journal on December 18, 2021
2021.01.03 revise - Requested to revise on January 3, 2021
2021.01.08 revision submitted to journal - Revised version submitted to the journal on January 8, 2021
2021.01.10 under review - Under review by the journal on January 10, 2021
2021.01.20 accept - Accepted on January 20, 2021
A good journal in the field of energy. There were two reviewers, both colleagues in the field. One of the reviewers provided 20 comments, which were very professional and detailed. After making the revisions, the quality of the paper improved greatly. I am very grateful for the recognition from the reviewers and the editor.