小奕在努力 2023-04-07

3 reviews have been received on your manuscript in the tracker, indicating that the opinions of three reviewers have been received. This situation is generally not optimistic. Generally, the editor of NJC will first seek opinions from two reviewers. If the opinions are consistent, a decision will be made directly. If the opinions of the two reviewers are not consistent, a third reviewer will be sought for arbitration. Finally, a specific editor will make the decision. Of course, it is not ruled out that the editor may have found four or five reviewers for you. Good luck!

hhhddd 2023-04-06

The text translates to English as: "In my status, it says '3 reviews received on your manuscript', does this mean that the reviewers have already provided their comments or are they still reviewing it?"

hhhddd 2023-03-28

Translation: I submitted it on February 13th, and it is now March 28th and I have not received any feedback. Can I request a prompt response?

驰驰123 2023-03-27

Hello, typically how long does it take to receive feedback from this journal?

驰驰123 2023-03-27

How long did the first trial take?

YXQ 2023-03-23

Will send an email to the corresponding author with a link to the manuscript tracker, where you can see the current status.

hhhddd 2023-03-23

Excuse me, where can I check if anyone has agreed to review the manuscript?

YXQ 2023-03-21

It has been almost a month since submission, and it has been in peer review all along. However, the tracker shows that no one has agreed to review it. Are there any fellow researchers who are experiencing the same situation as me? In this case, does it mean that no one has agreed to review it and the editor hasn't looked for other reviewers either?

小奕在努力 2023-03-21

On the afternoon of March 13th, I submitted a withdrawal application again... At the same time, I finally received the reviewer's comments at night, for minor revisions.
On March 14th, I made the revisions.
On March 20th, it was accepted.

pepa 2023-03-04

Summary of the submission
Submitted on 31st December 2022
Due to the New Year holiday, the paper was reviewed by the editor and in peer review within seven days.
Major revision on 4th February 2023 (13 comments for revisions, including both major and minor changes)
Revision submitted on 24th February 2023
Accepted on 26th February 2023
Online on 27th February 2023

The editor's efficiency is high, as they did not delay for a long time on the editor's side. However, there was a period of time when only one reviewer completed their review, as there was a delay in finding a second reviewer. Once the second reviewer accepted the review, the process was fast, and the editor quickly returned with the review comments. The reviewers' comments were all mild, and I tried my best to respond to the comments in a complete and detailed manner, following the specific requirements of the editorial department. The speed at which the editor sent the paper for review was really fast. Let's keep up the good work!

suiyuan 2023-02-08

Did the original poster submit the manuscript? I had to revise mine several times as well, but I don't know what it means.

小奕在努力 2023-02-08

2021-10-17 Post
2021-10-21 In peer review
Changed between "In peer review" and "With editor" several times
Finally, it stayed in "In peer review"
I sent a reminder before the Chinese New Year, but there was no reply
Does it mean it's gone?
It doesn't matter whether this article is accepted or not, just give me a result ?

luyuan1994 2023-02-07

Hello classmate! I would like to ask, when I submitted my manuscript for the new chemistry, the editor has returned it to me twice for this reason. I really don't understand what this means. I kindly request any classmate who knows to explain it to me. Thank you.

Wqyyy 2023-01-30

Okay, thank you, classmate!

hhxx11 2023-01-29

I did not write nor receive any email reminding me to submit. I happened to submit it exactly one month later.

Wqyyy 2023-01-27

Excuse me, may I ask if you wrote a letter to the editor requesting a delay in returning the repair halfway through? I also can't make up the experiment at home. Thank you!

hhxx11 2023-01-21

11.30 Submission
12.21 Major revision with 16 comments from reviewers
1.19 Revision
1.19 Received in the evening

The major revision took almost a month to complete, and it was received in the evening on the 19th. Such efficiency!

王王王 2023-01-18

9-Nov-2022 submitted
11-Dec-2022 major revision (12 comments)
28-Dec-2022 revised
13-Jan-2023 accepted
The speed is acceptable. Initially, three reviewers agreed to review the manuscript, but one of them delayed providing their comments, which caused some delay. Finally, it was sent out before graduation. Overall, RSC journals are still very good.

hhxx11 2023-01-15

So it's been almost a month, isn't it? Will there be an email reminder?

kun@peng 2023-01-15

You can receive it on the same day.

王王王 2023-01-15

May I ask how many days it takes for you to receive the publishing approval?

kun@peng 2023-01-15

The review process was fast, the comments were constructive, and the acceptance was even faster after responding.

CQDs 2023-01-14

No deadline for manuscript revisions was specified, but it usually takes about two weeks to revise. You can write a letter to the editor explaining the situation and requesting an extension for the manuscript revision deadline.

CQDs 2023-01-14

I resubmitted the email to the editorial department. The editorial department requested a re-submission and found another reviewer. It has now been accepted.

CQDs 2023-01-14

This article really went through several twists and turns. The first time I submitted to NJC, one reviewer had almost no suggestions, just minor edits on formatting and sentence structure. The other reviewer questioned the novelty of my submission, stating that my model did not comply with ratio fluorescence probes and did not calculate FRET distance, resulting in a direct rejection. The editor also rejected it based on their comprehensive evaluation. Then we sent an argue letter to the NJC editorial office, addressing the second reviewer's concerns and their doubts about our work. We provided high-level journal articles as references to demonstrate the novelty and correctness of our work. In the end, the editorial office accepted our application, allowing us to resubmit. They assigned another reviewer, who quickly gave a positive response, and our article was accepted. Overall, the process was fast, but the quality of the reviewers varied, and their expertise did not match the topic.

hhxx11 2023-01-05

Does the major repair have a time limit? I can't make up the experiment when I go home. Thank you.

蜡笔小新 2022-12-28

2022.12.28 With Editor

蜡笔小新 2022-12-22

2022.12.21 Submission Initial assessment

CQDs 2022-12-05

Submitted on November 8th, I received the first round of review results last night. Reviewer 1 suggested minor revisions, while Reviewer 2 rejected the paper, claiming that the method I proposed is incorrect. They argued that the simultaneous decrease of two fluorescence peaks does not qualify as a ratio fluorescence probe. It's really amusing. The editor, in accordance with this feedback, sent a rejection notice, and now I am preparing to resubmit the paper for another review. I will battle it out with Reviewer 2. The quality of reviewers varies greatly, with some lacking even the most basic understanding of concepts, yet still serving as reviewers, which diminishes the quality of new chemistry. Let's see what Reviewer 2 has to say in the 2022 review. Hilarious. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-022-4840-2

bgw 2022-12-02

Very soon, 28 days.