For people who do quantum computing, this is one of the journals that must be submitted to. The editors before and after found four reviewers to review in two batches, and the comments were very pertinent. After major revision was made, it was slightly revised later, and then it got accepted.

(7) Thank | 绘梦物语

It is the first article of my Ph.D. The article was submitted on September 23 2019. The result came back on October 23 2019, and minor revision was requested. The second reviewer was urged by the editor during the period. The revision was submitted on November 8 2019, and it was accepted on November 11 2019. I feel that the reviewers reviewed the article meticulously and professionally. My boss in American also recognizes this journal.

(5) Thank | 柚子

I don’t know what happened to those who say that Physical Review A is corrupt and bad. In short, this journal is recognized by the foreign professionals and has great influence in physics. The article without certain theoretical depth and innovation will not be accepted. The review speed was fast, and the editor was professional.

(11) Thank | hainewstar

My paper was rejected five months after submission. I’ve submitted three papers so far, all rejected, so I am a bit disappointed. In the case of the most recent one, the first round of review only had one reviewer, and the evaluation was quite good. After I revised the paper, the editor found a second reviewer. The second reviewer gave two rounds of review comments, and the process lasted a long time. Each round I had to remind the editor two or three times to get the comments back. I’m a new person in the field, and I feel I wasn’t treated fairly. The comments were superficial, not to the point, and I feel the reviewers didn’t read my papers carefully.

(4) Thank | alfred_wl@njupt.edu.cn

Did the reviewer submit the report on time or not?

(0) Thank | optics 皮卡丘

It took nearly four months from submission to acceptance, with two reviewers in the first round, one positive and one negative, providing 19 revision suggestions. The review process lasted for over 40 days. In the second round, only one reviewer remained, and the review process lasted for 40 days, with 5 revision suggestions provided. Generally, the journal follows the principle of a maximum of two rounds of review, but the editor allowed an additional round of review. After resubmission, the paper was directly accepted and entered the publication process 10 days later. The reviewers have a high level of expertise and the journal is internationally recognized in the field of AMO.

(2) Thank | treeyoung

The first paper of the doctorate! Although it has been downgraded to Tier 3, PRA is still highly regarded in the eyes of physicists.

(3) Thank | dickzhu

Although it has been downgraded to Zone 3, the difficulty of getting published is still relatively high. It is difficult to succeed without a certain level of innovation and skills. Despite some decline in reputation, our group still highly respects this magazine. The editor assigned five reviewers in total, but three of them rejected the manuscript, resulting in a six-month delay in acceptance. However, the editor is very responsible and the reviewers' comments are very pertinent, making it extremely challenging to respond to them. It takes over a month each time to complete the revisions and send the modified manuscript back to the editor. In my experience, it is still difficult to get published with articles that are either of low quality or lack innovation, unless you have influential support.

(2) Thank | daiside

The editor and editor of this journal is very corrupt.Pulling the gang to fight, revenge, and blatantly clear the way for academic fraud.In particular, the editor who paid the bill should resign and plead guilty.

(2) Thank | 5895

submitted out for five months, rejected, three consecutiveThis is a result, a bit disappointing.Recently, the first round of review comments has only one reviewer, and the review comments are quite good. After the reply, the editors found a second reviewer.The second reviewer gave two rounds of review comments, and the process in the middle was quite long. Each round of editors urging two or three times to reply.Because my temple is relatively small, new people in the field, obviously feel suppressed, the problem is very official, did not cut into the main points, and the papers are not deep.In short, there is serious research corruption!

(0) Thank | alfred_wl@njupt.edu.cn

The editor and editor of this journal is very corrupt.Pull the gang to fight, revenge, no bottom line.

(0) Thank | 0244

The Journal of the University of Science and Technology is a bit bumpy. It took half a year from the time of the select to the recruitment.The main reason was that the reviewers did not know much about this piece several times, and they had 4 trials before and after, and the editors were more patient.

(0) Thank | Anonymous