镁合金有栾静1 2021-04-19

A pretty good journal, very efficient, the reviewers are quite professional. I wish it continued to improve.

NO-ON 2021-04-08

2.7 submitted;
2.13 with edit;
2.16 under review
3.22 major revision
4.5 submitted
4.6 accept
I don't know who the person downstairs from the Institute of Metals is, but their tone is so arrogant. How did this journal become a low-quality journal for universities like Haxi? You should take a look at how many Chinese journals there are this year. The Chinese usually have a 30% acceptance rate for this journal, and it's definitely ranked as a Q2 by the Chinese Academy of Sciences for a reason. It's not something you can easily criticize. It's just a different focus. You are good at publishing articles on high-entropy alloys, so don't mislead others. I almost died laughing because of you. This journal usually takes about a month to provide review comments. I don't know why you received a response in just two weeks. Are you intentionally criticizing it?

金属所-MJ 2021-04-08

This journal has now become the dominion of Chinese people. The proportion of Chinese nationals has exceeded 40%. It has already become a specialized journal for metal research institutions such as Harbin Institute of Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, and Central South University. I don't know why the Chinese Academy of Sciences still categorizes it as a second-tier journal. An article on high-entropy alloys was rejected by Acta, so it was directly submitted to VACUUM. It was sent for review the next day and received minor revisions after a month. It's quite commendable, considering its current impact factor of 3.3. Judging from this trend, it should reach around 3.5 by June this year, as wherever there are Chinese people, there will be extensive discussions. Hehe.

科研小女子 2021-04-08

Haha, I submitted it in February, it was reviewed two days later, and received major revisions 15 days later. I had a few days of fun at home during the epidemic, and returned to school after a week of revisions. The next day, it was accepted. So happy!!! My first article in the second district of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Keep going!

围城 2021-04-07

How many reviewers are there? My manuscript has been under review for a month, and there has been no progress. They are also materials-related...

CSU-mitaer 2021-04-07

An article on Cu alloy, submitted around January, was rejected after waiting for a full three months. The reason for rejection was also strange - the editor said it did not fit within the scope of vacuum. However, many researchers from our school who work on aluminum alloys have also published in this journal. This reason... Today, a senior sister from our research group also submitted an article, and the manuscript number has reached over 2000. When I submitted mine, it was in the 300s. It can only be said that the journal currently has a sufficient number of submissions. The senior sister mentioned that the immediate impact factor is 3.35, and it is also included in the second district of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which makes it quite difficult...

墨枭袅 2021-04-07

This editor is very persistent with XPS and has made many revisions. Also, the transparency of my article has little to do with the whole piece, but they insist on making it.

Will 2021-03-29

The paper submitted in the direction of materials, was reviewed by two reviewers in the first round. One agreed while the other reviewer and the editor insisted on adding XPS testing (which was not necessary for this paper). After revising, one reviewer agreed to accept the paper, while the other reviewer recommended four references, all authored by Grzegorz Greczynski and editor Lars Hultman (I checked and found that two-thirds of these four references were papers from Vacuum). The main suggestion was to calibrate XPS using their methods, even though we did not require XPS data and were forced to add it. After adding it, we were asked to calibrate using their methods. This editor is just awful. I won't submit any more materials-related articles to this journal. I advise fellow researchers in materials to consider submitting to Vacuum, but they must ensure XPS data is comprehensive and calibrate using their methods, otherwise the editor will keep bothering them. Overall, I feel this editor is just terrible. I don't understand how someone like this could be hired as an editor.

Lico 2021-03-11

Yes, generally speaking, when it comes to vacuum searching for reviewers, there are usually at least four or more reviewers. Some experts' opinions are still impartial. We aim to have the basic version promoted to the second tier this year.

BJM 2021-03-11

I submitted it a year ago and waited for about a month. There were five reviewers, two of whom gave major revisions, while the other three were minor issues. The editor rejected it, despite its impact factor of 3.2. It seems like the standards have risen. However, I am grateful that the editor rejected it as I resubmitted it to MSEA, and they gave me minor revisions in about 10 days.

墨枭袅 2021-03-09

You are in the same situation as me. The editor has very strict requirements for XPS.

TLJ 2021-03-06

2020.12.09 submission
On December 25, 2020, the opinions of three experts were relatively good, and the editor asked a large number of XPS questions.
Revised on January 22, 2021.
On January 24, 2021, major revisions were made and accepted by two experts, and the editor continued to inquire about XPS correction issues and added an additional reviewer to ask six XPS questions.
Revised on February 4, 2021.
On February 6, 2021, major revisions were made, and the editor and reviewers continued to inquire about XPS correction issues, hoping for additional measurements to correct the UPS through the work function.
Revised on February 23, 2021 (additional experiments as requested by the editor).
On February 26, 2021, major revisions were made (minor issues).
Revised on March 1, 2021.
Accepted on March 3, 2021.

Lico 2021-02-05

2020.12.14 Submission
2020.12.15 External review, four experts
2021.01.10 First revision
2021.01.14 Revised
2021.01.15 External review
2021.01.20 Second revision
2021.02.04 Second revision returned
2021.02.05 Accepted
The Vacuum journal can choose non-open access. The presence of four external expert reviewers shows how serious and rigorous the editor is. Pay attention to the novelty and workload of the article. I wish the Vacuum journal continuous success and to achieve a higher ranking this year in the Basic Edition Zone 2.