Applied Sciences-Basel
Note: The following journal information is for reference only. Please check the journal website for updated information prior to submission.
Journal Title
Applied Sciences-Basel
APPL SCI-BASEL
ISSN / eISSN
2076-3417 / 2076-3417
Aims and Scope
Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417) provides an advanced forum on all aspects of applied natural sciences. It publishes reviews, research papers and communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation or experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary electronic material.
Subject Area
CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
CiteScore
5.30
View Trend
CiteScore Ranking
Category | Quartile | Rank |
---|---|---|
Engineering - General Engineering | Q1 | #62/307 |
Engineering - Instrumentation | Q2 | #42/141 |
Engineering - Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes | Q2 | #29/96 |
Engineering - Computer Science Applications | Q2 | #297/817 |
Engineering - General Materials Science | Q2 | #171/463 |
Engineering - Process Chemistry and Technology | Q3 | #39/73 |
Web of Science Core Collection
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) | Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) |
---|---|
Indexed | - |
Category (Journal Citation Reports 2024) | Quartile |
---|---|
CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY | Q2 |
ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY | Q1 |
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY | Q3 |
PHYSICS, APPLIED | Q2 |
H-index
23
Country/Area of Publication
SWITZERLAND
Publisher
MDPI (Basel, Switzerland)
Publication Frequency
Semi-monthly
Year Publication Started
2011
Annual Article Volume
13012
Open Access
YES
Contact
ST ALBAN-ANLAGE 66, BASEL, SWITZERLAND, CH-4052
Verified Reviews
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!
Submitted on 16th March 2020; First revision on 2nd May 2020, one major revision, one minor revision, one acceptance with major revision comments in a highlighted PDF, and then nothing happened, which was the first time encountering this; Made serious modifications and after receiving feedback, the reviewer for the minor revision stated acceptance, while the reviewer for the major revision commented: Thank you for addressing one/two comments. However, there were many other important things authors just ignored; Made further revisions and the major revision reviewer's comment was: The authors still take the comments for granted; Finally, rejected.
Thinking about what happened, I contacted the journal to see if I could change reviewers. Their response was: We think your article is very good, but there are still some minor issues, so continue revising and we will assign it to the same reviewer again. I made further revisions for another week, but it was still rejected. By June 28th, it had been 3 and a half months wasted.
Later, I submitted to another journal and unexpectedly it was accepted within a month (mainly because it was free and had a similar impact factor).
In January 2021, I received an email from this journal asking if I had considered re-submitting.
Do you think I might consider submitting again?
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversationBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started