The review efficiency was a bit low, and the reason for the final rejection was also very common. I don’t understand why it is delayed for a month, which affected the transfer very much. The editor was Gabriella Cincotti.

(0) Thank | HUSTCSD

We first submitted in September 2017, but was rejected after the editorial review and they suggest us to transfer it to other OSA journals. The reason for rejection was that the article does not have a broad audience. In the following three months, we added new experiments and submitted it for the second time in December of the same year. After two weeks of the editorial review and the six-week peer review, we received comments from three reviewers, two of whom recommended acceptance, and the other suggested additional experiments. The editor requested major revision. We spent four weeks performing the experiments and completing the revision. The revised paper was re-viewed for three weeks and then finally accepted by Optica. As the flagship journal of OSA, Optica has much higher quality than OE and OL. I hope that its IF can go above 10 this year. In addition, I feel that cover letter is a crucial part in the editorial review step. It is not necessary to follow the 250-word limit stated on the Optica website. You can write as detailed as possible, and clearly explain the originality and importance of the work.

(12) Thank | freshpostdoc

A little tricky, it has been a month and it is still in the hands of the editor. Anxious to graduate, please be cautious when choosing to invest.

(1) Thank | keyanyaojiayou

The latest impact factors for 2023 have been announced. As far as optical journals are concerned, the IF of global magazines has decreased, but domestic optical journals have all risen. Those who understand know that this reflects the serious manipulation of the IF of domestic journals, which seriously deviates from the general trend and is just self-entertainment.

(1) Thank | Phys112

Overall, it's quite fast, if there is no Christmas, submission to acceptance should be less than two months

(0) Thank | 七陌

How did your thesis turn out in the end, OP?

(0) Thank | hj

Small circles are very serious, and the professional level of the arranged reviewers is not as good as OE.

(2) Thank | 江枫晚

12.20 submission
Continuously searching for reviewers, but unable to find any.
4.15 Major revision, need to explain new theoretical derivation formulas and provide additional experiments. Two expert reviewers agree to accept.
5.15 Return, editor review.
5.20 Accepted.
The process is a bit long, not recommended if you are in a hurry to graduate.

(0) Thank | 304

Does "Major Revisions Required" mean that the journal requires extensive revisions?
And what does "Reviewer Rating Completed" mean?
Thank you for your help in answering.

(3) Thank | 304

Didn't expect it to be accepted, and encountered a relatively nice editor. The specific submission process:
6.1 Submitted.
6.8 Showed that the editor sent it for review, but couldn't find a reviewer. Finally, found 8 reviewers, but only 2 were willing to review.
8.1 Received a major revision decision. Both reviewers' comments were troublesome, requiring additional data from theory, simulation, and experiments. Basically had to redo everything, took two whole months to revise.
10.1 Finished the revision and submitted a response to the reviewer's suggestions.
10.22 Received the acceptance decision.
Some experiences:
1. It seems that the editor saw a completely different version of our revision and didn't send it to the two reviewers. Otherwise, we should have received feedback from them.
2. Personally, I feel that Optica doesn't require as much innovation, but demands a huge amount of data. It's better to supplement all possible data before submission, which increases the chances of being reviewed and accepted.
3. The review process is quite long, taking a total of 6 and a half months (mainly due to finding reviewers and revising the article). If the editor sends it for review quickly, the chances of acceptance are usually high.
4. I don't know the submission order of others. Personally, I think when submitting to Optica, should we try Light first?

(18) Thank | 老和尚说我帅

Did the original poster submit for review?

(0) Thank | xinhhh

Relatively speaking, the physical requirements of PRL are higher than Optica, while NC leans more towards micro and nano optics. For physics like ours that doesn't have such a profound traditional optical direction, it is quite difficult to submit to PRL and NC. Optica is the best choice, as long as the innovation is sufficient, there is a chance. After a 10-day editor review, it takes about a month and a half to receive the revision comments, and the acceptance is received on the same day as the upload after the modifications.

(5) Thank | 邹邹是我

The OP's submission for review is really timely, I envy it.

(0) Thank | 光电小子gogogo

The journal states that the Editorial Review will be completed within 7 working days, but in reality, it seems to take forever. Why is it so slow?

(3) Thank | 光电小子gogogo

What is the probability of being rejected after the review of optica? I didn't expect that a small job could be reviewed. It was submitted on August 1st and reviewed on August 5th.

(0) Thank | 老和尚说我帅

Can I ask, how likely is it for the post to be rejected after submission? There is a small job that I'm planning to submit to Optica, and I didn't expect it to be sent for review, but it was sent for review within 5 days by the editor, and I'm quite nervous.

(0) Thank | 老和尚说我帅

It is difficult to say the specific situation, but generally, peer review takes about one and a half to two months after submission for review.

(0) Thank | Zhihan666

How long does the main post Editorial Review take?

(0) Thank | 科研精神小伙

It has been 25 days, I really want to switch journals.

(1) Thank | 科研精神小伙

As an optical engineer, Optica holds great value and is indeed quite difficult to develop. The requirements for innovation are very high, and I hope it can continue to improve.

(3) Thank | Zhihan666

6.22, submission, the editor reviewed it quickly.
6.29, sent for peer review. We invited 6 reviewers, 3 agreed, and 3 were unavailable. Originally, the review period was one month. One person delayed it for another month.
8.30, received review comments. Two were positive, one was very negative.
One suggested direct publication, while another suggested modifying some descriptions regarding novelty. However, the third reviewer was extremely negative, considering our article worthless and proposing alternative methods, which he believed to be correct, as well as suggesting additional experiments (which we had actually conducted but he overlooked). The editor gave us two weeks.
Due to the excessively negative feedback from the third reviewer, we directly responded. We explained in detail that the methods he suggested were fundamentally impractical and pointed out that the experiments he requested had already been included in the supplemental materials.
9.13, resubmitted the modified version. In reality, we only made a few word changes and added a few citations.
9.14, sent back to the reviewers, waited for another two weeks.
9.30, received feedback. Two reviewers accepted it directly, but the third still had concerns. One of the positive reviewers even advocated for us in their comments. Finally, the editor provided a suggestion, asking us to conduct two additional experiments and gave us one week. We performed the experiments as suggested by the editor and sent it back within one week.
10.7, resubmitted again, and it was immediately accepted.
10.13, notified that it enters the subsequent production process.

(5) Thank | Iliujm

Congratulations, congratulations, you've reached over 10!

(4) Thank | RICKKKK

2018.10.02 Submission, the initial editing was submitted to the four reviewers for review, two agreed, one of which has not been submitted to the review comments, the state of January 2019 shows closed, and later edited to findSome reviewers, in the end, 2019.1.22 received editorial comments, refused to draft.The comments of the two reviewers were all due to the lack of quality of Optica. The recommendations were published in journals such as Optics Express, but the editors did not give feedback.The submission system has only one option to switch to the OSA continuum.

(3) Thank | anyi0924

NP was rejected, the boss gaveTwo options, PNAS or Optica, decisively choose Optica.Super fast, submitted on November 1st, submitted on the 4th, and reviewed on the 12th, the two review comments are positive, one of which makes the supplementary data, two weeks to get the 25th return, December 1 officially accepted, the status is production.

(6) Thank | Liqing

very good journals, very like the review efficiency, editing quality.A lot of 2 months publish.Even a lot of 1 month.It's not a bit faster than many competitive journals.The field is optical imaging, and the articles published by optica in this field are of very high quality, many Asian or quasi-NP grade articles.Although there are many fields in optica, it is expected that optica will become a top journal for optical imaging in a few years (the number of NPs is too small and the material is biased for some basic subjects).Many of the above articles are very novel and can be followed.Of course, there is some hydrology, I hope the editor is better off.

(4) Thank | freshoptica