AngelaChenyu 2022-02-28

I'm about to graduate and have made some progress in the field of weak fault feature extraction for rolling bearings. It can be considered a small innovation, but it is not enough to publish in a very good journal. I thought about finding a fast journal to publish before I graduate, and my advisor recommended Applied Sciences-Basel and asked me to support his Special Issue. Last year, I supported another work, but I didn't like that journal because it had a low impact factor. I submitted my previous work to a journal in the second quartile and it got accepted. Luckily, I didn't submit it to the journal I mentioned earlier. This year, there is no warning about the journal, so I decided to submit my work there.

狗屎 2022-02-26

After submitting the revisions, within just one working day, both reviewers simultaneously and unanimously replied, "The author has made significant improvements, there are no other issues, and we agree to accept the manuscript." I was shocked at that moment, as the review suddenly became so positive. I couldn't accept it _(¦3」∠)_

After acceptance, the next steps are payment and proofreading the final version. The version that was given to me for proofreading had already been lightly edited by the publishing company. However, they had actually made mistakes in some areas, and what was even more unacceptable was that the parts they had edited were not highlighted, which forced me to spend an entire day proofreading every word and sentence from start to finish.

狗屎 2022-02-26

(2) Reviewer 2's major revisions. I feel like they are not Chinese and not from the same field. The comments they provided are all very amateur, mainly stating that they didn't understand many fundamental concepts. They asked me to explain in layman's terms more, _(¦3」∠)_. It would have been sufficient to just provide some layman's explanations. What confuses me is that their comments are all very brief and abstract. For example, they say "due to the existence of many similar works, this article lacks innovation," but they don't specify which work it is similar to. I have conducted thorough research before submitting, and I am certain that there are no similar works. So I strongly suspect that they wrote each review comment abstractly just to copy and paste these generic comments when reviewing other articles o(╯□╰)o.

狗屎 2022-02-26

The first review only took 5 working days, super fast! There were a total of 2 reviewers:
(1) Reviewer 1 was quite annoying, with opinions in 3 aspects: The first point was the most ridiculous, complaining that I cited too many articles and that each bracket can only cite one article, not allowing the format of "[1-3]" to cite three articles at once. WTF, this rule really surprised me, o(╯□╰)o. Moreover, most of the articles I cited were the most relevant, from the past 5 years, and from top conferences and journals. There was not a single unnecessary article, but in the end, I had to obediently delete a significant number of references. The second point was about the lack of specificity in the formula and algorithm description in the main methodology section, which he didn't understand and therefore believed it couldn't be reproduced. Based on his description, I concluded that he is not a peer and doesn't genuinely want to reproduce my paper, so I simply added a brief explanation and clarification to the formulas. The third point was about the need to cite 3 unrelated works in the related work section (wait, didn't that dog just complain about too many references from me?! And, as expected, all 3 articles have the same author, and I instantly understood who this dog is, haha).

狗屎 2022-02-26

When submitting an article, this journal provides a list of editors and reviewers, allowing authors to recommend reviewers themselves. After seeing previous comments suggesting the possibility of not being able to find reviewers, I roughly browsed through this list of reviewers and selected several potential reviewers based on their research field. Then, I went to this amazing website, https://publons.com/researcher/, and investigated the research and reviewing experiences of these reviewers one by one. Finally, I confirmed a few reviewers. Unfortunately, it seems that the actual reviewers chosen were quite different from those I recommended. o(╯□╰)o

狗屎 2022-02-26

Editorial responses are prompt, and the review and publication process is extremely fast. The reviewers are relatively professional and responsible, so overall it is satisfactory.

Timeline: Submission -> 5 days -> Major revision -> 10 days -> Submit revised version -> 1 day -> Acceptance -> 1 day -> Proofreading and final version -> 5 days -> Online publication (days refer to working days).

Before submitting, I saw previous comments saying that the editors of this journal have significant discretion. To prevent rejection by the editors, I carefully considered the cover letter. In the letter, I briefly summarized the research background, research questions, and research value, and also emphasized that this journal has previously published related articles and that we will cite these articles.

edvin 2022-02-24

After submission, it has been pending review for several days. The reason for choosing this journal was its fast review process. However, based on this progress, it is unlikely to be completed quickly.

hp161877 2022-02-20

There are a total of 4 reviewers.

灯火迷离汤 2022-02-16

12.17 submitted
12.20 Assistant Editor Assigned
Cannot use QQ email
12.21 under review
1.11 inquiring about manuscript status
1.12 informing reviewer of one month vacation
1.20 Major Revisions, 10 days (spelling, methods; introduction; insufficient result explanation, add figures; proofreading)
1.26 proofreading
1.27 returned manuscript
1.28 Manuscript Resubmitted
2.2 Minor Revisions, 3 days
2.3 Manuscript Resubmitted
2.5 Minor Revisions (table data format), Manuscript Resubmitted
2.8 Minor Revisions (data format), Manuscript Resubmitted
2.9 Minor Revisions (data format), Accepted for Publication
2.10 Final Proofreading Before Publication
2.11 Proofreading-Form Updated
2.12 Final Check
2.15 Website Online

hp161877 2022-02-10

After submission, the first review result (minor revision) will be available in 1 week, with a requirement to make the changes within 5 days. After applying to the AE, the deadline was extended by 6 days. The second review result (minor revision, 1 comment) will be available in 1 day, and the third submission will be made 2 days later, which was accepted on the same day. From the initial draft to the final acceptance, it took a total of 22 days. The second round of revisions actually only took a few hours. If the first round is handled tightly, it could be accepted in less than twenty days.

haner 2022-01-25

Received Date: 25 November 2021
Revised Date: 6 January 2022
Accepted Date: 24 January 2022
Submission to First Decision (Days): 60

Wzzzz1991 2022-01-24

Around 18 days for the first review, 5 days for major revisions, and 5 days for acceptance, totaling 28 days for acceptance. The reviewer's comments are constructive, and this journal generally allows major revisions. The chances of acceptance are quite high if the modifications are made strictly according to the requirements.

Janrous 2022-01-05

Fast is really fast
Also withdrew the warning

Buer 2022-01-02

2021JCR-Q2, not listed on the Chinese Academy of Sciences warning list as of December 31, 2021. Self-citation rate is not high.

Buer 2022-01-02

It could also be that there are few reviewers in your specific field of expertise. Don't worry, just wait a little longer.

Buer 2022-01-02

Very professional and efficient, quickly publishing their comprehensive research results and receiving widespread attention. The specialty of this journal lies in completing two rounds of review (including revisions) in just around 30 days, providing a relatively short time for reviewers. After all, those who have served as reviewers understand that it is often considered normal to have more than a month to review, and they often put it aside after confirming the review (self-reflection here), which reduces the efficiency of the scientific research community. In reality, the "true" review time is at most one week.

There were three reviewers this time, two of whom gave very positive evaluations, while the other provided nearly 20 suggestions, leading to significant revisions. This process was a bit tiring, and the author also had a tight schedule for making the modifications.

At the same time, I would like to express my personal opinion. I used to be a fan of traditional journals, but even among the top journals in the industry, including those in the first and second tiers of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, there are many irregularities in the review process. For example, reviewers may upload incorrect review comments (completely unrelated to the article), editors may make decisions directly without proper revisions, and reviewers may lack professionalism and do a perfunctory job (even to the extent of being unreachable for reevaluation).

Regarding the issue of publication fees for open-access journals, in fact, I may not have noticed it before, but I have found that many colleagues have published in some traditional top-tier journals that I carefully examined and discovered to be open-access as well. This means that these journals have also opened up OA choice. But, oh well, as expected, well-known journals like Elsevier charge much higher publication fees for OA compared to MDPI!

Wei 2021-12-31

2021.12.06 Submission
2021.12.22 Minor repair
2021.12.26 Return from minor repair
2021.12.31 Acceptance

Wei 2021-12-28

What's the situation now? It seems that both the editors and reviewers are on vacation. You can send an email to inquire about it.

Wei 2021-12-28

I submitted on 12.06 and edited on 12.09, asking me to recommend reviewers again. I recommended three domestic reviewers. Then, on 12.22, all the reviewer comments were returned. You should check if your editor and reviewers are from the European or American region. If they are, it is possible that they will be on vacation continuously for the Christmas and New Year holidays until 2022.01.10.

儒雅的火舞炫风 2021-12-27

Same question, it's been a month since I submitted it and it's still under review.

灯火迷离汤 2021-12-27

Do they have a Christmas holiday? How many days off?

tub 2021-12-24

It has been 6 days pending review.

如风kris 2021-12-20

Is it just changed?

Wei 2021-12-20

In 2021, the Chinese Academy of Sciences' classification has been reduced to Zone 4. It's really unfortunate.

1111 2021-12-03

When submitting a paper to the journal Applied Sciences, the journal name displayed in the system is "Applied Sciences." However, when searching for the journal in the Web of Science database, the journal name appears as "Applied Sciences Basel." After downloading the article, the journal name remains as "Applied Sciences." What is the reason for this?

李相文 2021-11-22

How do I submit the revised manuscript?

李相文 2021-11-22

How to submit the revised manuscript? There is no place to upload on the MDPI website!

linmd1989 2021-11-08

Received Date: 3 October 2021
Revised Date: 6 November 2021
Accepted Date: 8 November 2021

It's not easy or difficult to say, but the article is the completion of a department-level research project, and reimbursement does not require consideration of the publishing house, so for efficiency, MDPI was chosen.
In Round 1, there were three reviewers. One reviewer gave a direct acceptance, one reviewer suggested minor revisions, and one reviewer provided a review comment of 1500 words.
In Round 2, there were two reviewers. One reviewer accepted the submission, and one still requested a 300-word essay.
After the final revisions, the acceptance was successfully achieved. It can't be called easy because it is at least more strict than many journals indexed in the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSCD). However, compared to top conferences and journals, the review process is far less rigorous.

张萌 2021-11-08

I heard it has turned into a water publication? I don't know if it's true or not, or if it has been kicked out.

慈母守中线 2021-10-27

Same situation, may I ask what happened to your pending editor decision two weeks from now?