润成 2021-08-28

A very good journal, the reviewers are also very professional, the quality of the articles is even better than some domestic Zone 1 journals. It is just a pity that it has been classified as Zone 3 by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Hopefully, it will return to Zone 2 soon.

Lyw1995 2021-07-06

The first review takes one month for minor revisions, while the second review takes half a month before submission acceptance.

EchoGee 2021-07-02

I really said it right. CiteScore has increased from 5.4 or 5.6 to 5.9, and IF has increased from 3.16 to 3.20, although it is just a small increase.

EchoGee 2021-06-21

The journal is still very good. In the past, its Impact Factor (IF) was considered to be in the 2nd quartile. Recently, the CiteScore has slightly increased, so it is estimated that the latest IF will also increase a little bit.

铠黄 2021-04-18

Comment again after being hit.

xin 2021-04-15

I submitted an article in the 14th year, and the reviewers' comments were very professional. There were four reviewers, and the editor was also very responsible, including the final proofreading, correcting minor errors in grammar and vocabulary one by one, more responsible than Elsevier's editors. It used to be a journal in the second tier, but now it is in the third tier, at the same level as a domestic physics journal. I'm not sure what the significance of this current tier is.

ffjiang 2021-03-30

The document has been delivered to the reviewers for four days, and we are now waiting for the results.

newsnews 2021-02-06

How did "submitting to multiple journals" become a moral issue? It is clearly an oppressive clause imposed by the editorial department. Why is it not considered a moral issue to apply to multiple schools for admission?
The editor made a wrong decision, the chief editor made a wrong decision, and the original judgment must be upheld, which is the practice of international journals. Which of these moral issues is more serious, the one of submitting to multiple journals or the one in the editorial department? Should the academic community intervene in the moral issues of the editorial department?
The initial review system of the editorial department is a bad one, and the immediate rejection is based on the level of the author's affiliation.
Science is about questioning, and some journals openly declare in their guidelines that they will not review the commonly accepted theories, claiming it is too time-consuming. What is your journal for? Can it only sing praises? ScienceNature refers innovative articles to specialized journals, but specialized journals have the same taste as ScienceNature.
Truly innovative articles are not dared to be reviewed by both ScienceNatureCell and specialized journals. The thinking of top journals is directly inherited by specialized journals.
You can immediately reject a perpetual motion machine manuscript because you understand thermodynamics.
There was a recent online debate about a manuscript questioning relativity. Regardless of right or wrong, as an editor, you do not have the qualification to immediately reject it based on our common belief in relativity. Because you do not understand relativity. The rejection should be made by someone who understands relativity, and you need to make the author convinced.