Dr Bill 2021-11-17

May I ask how the original poster resolved it later? I'm also facing the same issue, and it has been half a month and I'm still "with editor".

的撒爱吃 2021-11-03

The reviewer has always asked for language improvements. How did the original poster polish the language? Any methods?

的撒爱吃 2021-11-03

The reviewer asked me to proofread, may I ask how do you proofread, OP?

的撒爱吃 2021-11-02

May I ask how did the original poster solve this issue?

的撒爱吃 2021-11-02

The original poster wants to ask how to operate the process of citing references in the conclusion to demonstrate breakthrough progress, as the editor has been consistently requesting it. They kindly ask for guidance from the original poster.

时光漫步 2021-10-29

8.7 Submission
8.22 Received review comments from 5 reviewers, who provided many valuable suggestions, including some minor errors. Given 45 days for major revisions.
Due to personal reasons, requested a 10-day extension.
10.19 Submitted revised comments and sent for review on the same day.
10.26 Minor revisions.
10.29 Submitted revised comments at 9 AM.
Accepted at 1 PM on 10.29.

I have previously submitted to many journals and have been rejected, including rejection after a 4-month review by JPS. It was quite discouraging. I was just trying my luck with this journal, but I did not expect such efficiency. The reviewers were very professional and nice, paying great attention to detail. The editor also emphasized the format of the conclusion in both rounds of revisions. Many thanks to editor Prof. Martin Malmsten. I wish the journal continued success and a permanent position in the top tier.

小小浪花 2021-10-27

20210924 submit - Submitted on September 24th, 2021.
20210926 format modification - Format modifications made on September 26th, 2021.
20210927 resubmit - Resubmitted on September 27th, 2021.
20210929 under review - Under review since September 29th, 2021.
20211011 major revision - Major revision requested on October 11th, 2021.
20211021 resubmit - Resubmitted on October 21st, 2021.
20211026 minor revision + resubmit - Minor revision made and resubmitted on October 26th, 2021.
20211027 accept - Accepted on October 27th, 2021.

The journal is very nice and demands high innovation, which may secure its position in the top tier in the future. The submission and review process was like having a green channel, very fast! The reviewers were professional, and their feedback greatly improved the article. Lastly, a big thank you to editor Julian Eastoe.

djp 2021-10-22

I'm so fed up with this journal. I submitted it in France, but I don't know which editor is still "with editor" for over ten days... No feedback whatsoever. Fortunately, I'm not in a rush to publish, so I can't be bothered to send him an email asking about it anymore.

学猹呆呆 2021-10-22

Fill in the details and follow-up:

First revision: ① For the reviewer who suggested to transfer: politely and gently + provide additional experimental data to refute some of the reviewer's viewpoints with solid evidence, while humbly accepting their suggestions regarding non-substantial modifications to the text; ② For the reviewer who requested additional experiments: provide the required additional experiments; ③ For the reviewer who requested additional references: add them, anything is acceptable.

Also, suggest "providing five additional reviewers who can be used for arbitration, otherwise it will be sent back to one of the reviewers with different opinions."

Follow-up on the revision:
Oct 20, minor revision (did not send it to five new reviewers for arbitration, but sent it back to reviewers ① and ②. Reviewer ① acknowledged our revisions and suggested a few more changes; Reviewer ② agreed to accept the revisions; ③ has not responded)

Oct 20, received the revised manuscript; Oct 21, accepted.

Editor Julian Eastoe was very prompt and nice; this article mainly focuses on the colloid interface mechanism regulation during crystal growth process. Previously, it was rejected by Angewandte Chemie after a few days and was suggested to consider transferring to Crystal Growth & Design after finding a more suitable journal in the field of organic chemistry.

In addition, our research group has submitted two articles on the surface modification of two-dimensional materials for adsorption applications in the past year, both of which were accepted by Editor Zheng Gengfeng.

xiangxinxin 2021-10-22

Oh, I see. Thank you very much!!! I also asked several classmates around me, but none of them have encountered this situation before and are not sure either, so thank you again! Also, I wish your article to be accepted soon.

学猹呆呆 2021-10-22

To Xiangxinxin: This sentence appears several times during both major and minor revisions, and it simply gives you the option to use this format, it is not mandatory. We followed the most traditional word formatting for the manuscript and SI (this article is to be uploaded as one word document), and the images are just inserted normally. From the results, it doesn't seem to have any impact on the final reception.

In the emails sent by several editors, there is a lot of automatically generated content, including options for new publishing methods and original data presentation, etc. These can be ignored. Just pay close attention to the specific requirements mentioned by the editors and reviewers, and the automatically generated content can be disregarded.

Hope this helps, and best of luck with your revisions.

xiangxinxin 2021-10-21

Hello, may I ask if you have encountered this: the Journal of Colloid And Interface Science has an interactive plotting viewer. Please prepare a .csv file containing the plotting data and test it online before submitting it as supplementary material. What does this mean? Does it mean to submit the raw data? If you see this message, could you please reply to me briefly? I would truly appreciate it!

xiangxinxin 2021-10-21

Hello, I would like to ask you, did you let the Interactive Drawing Viewer submit a .csv file containing drawing data when returning for repair, and test it online before submitting it as supplementary material? What does this mean? Does it mean that I should submit the raw data? If you see this, please kindly reply to me. Thank you very much!!!

学猹呆呆 2021-10-20

Aug 20, submit
Aug 21, with editor (prof. julian eastoe) Minor revision requested on the same day (editor asked for changes in abstract and conclusion format)
Aug 28, revision submitted to journal Under review two days later
Sep 18~20, Required reviews completed on the next day, then changed back to under review the following day
Sep 20, major revision (two minor revisions and one resubmission, given 45 days)
Oct 12, revision submitted to journal on the same day with editor
Oct 13, under review
Oct 13, Changed to required reviews completed on October 19 but the system time did not change on October 13?
The current result is unknown, waiting for further details to be confirmed.

Also, I would like to ask the experts: Why is there a situation where the status changes in the second review but the time does not change? Normally, only the time should change, right?

13793183500 2021-10-17

10.12 submitted
10.17 still with editor
Is there still a chance?

原原原原原原 2021-10-17

Instant JCIS: 7.2, CEJ: 11.4, Nanoscale: 5.9 Carbon: 8.1, JPS: 6.9, ASS: 5.3 Alloy: 4.6 AMI 7.4 JMCC: 5.7
For 9.5 months, the score is 7.2, and for 12 months, it should be above 9.1, with a possibility of surpassing 9.5.

HIT-Jing 2021-10-13

20210831 - submitted
20210901 - under review
2021013 - still under review

远航abc 2021-10-12

20210824 submitted to journal
20210825 under review
20210924 major revision
20211010 resubmitted to journal
20211011 with editor
20211011 accept

The journal has high requirements for innovation, and the reviewers and editors are good. Their feedback has been very helpful in improving the article. I wish the journal's impact factor continues to increase.

爱斯基摩 2021-10-12

May I ask, when the reviewer asked you to make revisions, did they also ask you to recommend five new reviewers?

xiaozhang111 2021-10-11

I have also been asked to revise and polish. May I ask if you are looking for a specialized agency for editing and polishing, or if you are editing and polishing by yourself?

都是哇大苏打 2021-10-11

Received reviewer comments in 15 days.
Major revisions suggested by three reviewers, and editor requested further proofreading.
After making the necessary revisions, the submission was accepted 5 days later.

爱斯基摩 2021-10-11

The first submission was rejected with suggestions for revisions, specifically targeting the Abstract and Conclusion sections. After making the necessary modifications, the paper was resubmitted and went under review on the same day. After 10 days, the first review result came in as a major revision (quite fast indeed). However, the editor suggested recommending five new reviewers, otherwise, one of the previous reviewers will make the final decision on the revised manuscript. Have any of you encountered this situation before? Should I recommend new reviewers? I have a feeling of being rejected... Sigh.

baobao-xiaowang 2021-10-09

JCIS real-time impact factor is 7.0, JPS real-time impact factor is 6.8, and the impact factor is expected to be close to JPS next year.

Henry_Accepted 2021-10-01

It means exactly what it says. If the results you list are obtained through calculations, there is generally a margin of error. If the results are characterized by experimental instruments, this margin of error is the instrument's accuracy range. You can discuss it with your supervisor, or with senior colleagues in your research group.

jiaochen123 2021-09-30

The phrase "误差评估" in English means "error estimation" or "error evaluation".

jiaochen123 2021-09-30

Hello, does the conclusion section editing require citing references? Should the conclusion also include citing references?

Henry_Accepted 2021-09-30

September 1, submission;
September 2, under review;
September 15, the status of the manuscript changed once;
September 22, received reviewer comments;
September 28, revised and returned;
September 29, accepted.

This article mainly focuses on simulation calculations. The editor-in-chief, Eastoe, is a "rising star" in experimental research. Both the editor-in-chief and the selected reviewers are very professional and their comments are very pertinent. The article has requirements for language, images, and writing style. The word count should not be too long, and there should generally be no more than 9 figures/images. The writing style of the abstract and conclusion is a key focus for the editor. Additionally, in my opinion, the key to sharpening the argument in the conclusion is to boast with solid evidence and reasoning. Everyone should feel free to do so. The journal also requires articles to be innovative, so if it can undergo review, it means it meets the innovation criteria.

李凌1997 2021-09-27

9.25 Required Reviews Completed translates to "9.25 Mandatory Reviews Finished" in English.

baobao-xiaowang 2021-09-26

You are too anxious. It has only been a little over 10 days. Take it slowly.

李凌1997 2021-09-23

On September 8th, it was "with editor" and "under review". Then, on September 23rd, it was still "under review". I'm waiting anxiously for the paper to be read and for my Ph.D. studies. I'm in a hurry.