In addition, I forgot to tell you something about popular science. The CiteScore of an academic journal is an indicator that reflects the average annual citation number of articles recently published in the journal. (CiteScore (CS) of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the yearly average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. This journal evaluation metric was launched in December 2016 by Elsevier as an alternative to the generally used JCR impact factors (IFs). —Wikipedia)

(13) Thank | STRUCTURE

I recently read some comments of several comprehensive journals on this website. I didn’t want to make any comments, but I can’t stand it anymore. The user “I am a gust of wind”, as a research worker, you should seek truth from facts, and must not be arrogant and full of nonsense. I do research on material science. With the rise of domestic journals, I also started to pay attention to outstanding domestic journals such as Science Bulletin. Although the articles on materials in Science Bulletin are still far behind the time-honored material journals, they are definitely better than those in Scientific Reports as you said. Currently, the articles on materials in Science Bulletin focus on the hot topics, and it is also a choice for the development of this journal. After all, articles on hot topics are more helpful for increasing citation rates. In addition, I can also see some eye-catching comments from the user "I am a gust of wind" among the comments of other journals, which is not desirable. As for the NC that you discussed, I think this journal is generally okay, but the disadvantages are also obvious, such as excessive publication, uneven quality, and high cost. If this development continues, it is possible to follow the path of Scientific Reports.

(15) Thank | WhuKai

The situation of citations in 2018 of articles published in comprehensive publications during 2017–2018: 1741 articles published in Nature, the real-time impact factor at the end of 2018 was 22.41; 1569 articles published in Science, the real-time impact factor at the end of 2018 was 21.18; 6529 articles published in PNAS, the real-time impact factor at the end of 2018 was 4.72; 9384 articles published in NC, the real-time impact factor at the end of 2018 was 5.49; 1631 articles published in SA, the real-time impact factor at the end of 2018 was 5.85; 77 articles published in National Science Review, the real-time impact factor at the end of 2018 was 9.00; 331 articles published in Science Bulletin, the real-time impact factor at the end of 2018 was 5.15. I analyzed the citations in 2019 of articles published during 2017–2018. As of March 18, 2019, the real-time impact fact of Nature was 6.27; the real-time impact fact of Science was 6.18; the real-time impact fact of PNAS was 1.37; the real-time impact fact of NC was 1.78; the real-time impact fact of SA was 1.90; the real-time impact fact of National Science Review was 2.75; the real-time impact fact of National Science Bulletin was 1.807, which completely surpassed PNAS, and it was at the same level as NC. It is estimated that nature will eventually reach 43 in 2019. According to the real-time impact factor on March 18, PNAS will be around 9.5, NSR will be around 19, and Science Bulletin will be around 12. Therefore, it can be said with certainty that the final impact factor of Science Bulletin in 2019 must exceed 10.

(176) Thank | 一刀倾城

This year the impact factor has risen slightly, and the self-citation rate has dropped. At present, the self-citation rate is 11.5%, which is a relatively low. The impact factor is 4.136, which is not bad. It is ranked Q4 by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is not reasonable. The CAS ranking is not determined in a reasonable way. It is calculated by dividing the sum of the impact factors in the last two years (4.0 for 2017 and another number for 2016 before the journal title change) by 3. This calculation is very unfair. However, the ranking will definitely rise at the end of this year. The impact factor is greater than 4 for two consecutive years. No matter how it is calculated, it will not be low. At least it will be ranked Q3. The impact factor will be calculated according to the immediate impact factor next year, at around 5, so then it should be ranked Q2. In fact, this journal is ranked Q1 by JCR.

(6) Thank | 7608

Normally, after submission, the editor will assign the manuscript to the editorial board members in the relevant field, who will conduct a preliminary review and then decide whether to send it for peer review or reject it. This process typically takes 2-3 weeks.

(0) Thank | gao5421ghy

On June 9th, Submitted
On June 11th, Under Consideration, ED: Zou, XXXX (direct Editor)
Still Under Consideration to this day.

(0) Thank | James

How are you doing now?

(0) Thank | 小李bb

Submitted 10 days ago, still Under Consideration. Is this status normal?

(0) Thank | EasternKing

The non-double first-class subject group has no big names attached. After a few submissions, it was sent for review for the first time. The article was submitted on March 12, 2025, and was in peer review on March 14, 2025. On March 26, 2025, a major revision was requested with 3 reviewers, one major revision, and two minor revisions. It was resubmitted on April 15, 2025, and underwent minor revisions. All 3 reviewers agreed to accept it, and the formatting was modified on April 25, 2025.

(0) Thank | 飘来飘去的蒲公英

Non-relational contributors will be rejected directly one week after submission, with the reason being a lack of priority.

(0) Thank | 叫啥都重名

This journal seems to be biased. It's okay to be rejected in a week, but even the reason for rejection is ridiculous. I submitted a review article, and the reason for rejection was that my review lacked innovation.

(0) Thank | 哈哈哈

Hello, I would like to ask when will the allocation editor be displayed?

(0) Thank | 老人家

May I ask when the allocation editor will be displayed?

(0) Thank | 老人家

No, cannot find it.

(0) Thank | 飘来飘去的蒲公英

Hello, can you check the specific status of your submission through the AISWEI official WeChat account?

(0) Thank | het

Please share the timeline for submitting to Science Bulletin. We welcome everyone to share in the field of new energy batteries.
3.07, submitted
3.12, under consideration
3.20, Under Review
We are still following up, not sure if it has been sent out for external review yet. Is it normal that the Elsevier public account cannot be found? Or do reviewers need to accept the invitation to see it? How long does it take to receive the review comments?

(0) Thank | het

Submitted a review article to a small research group, not by invitation. It was found that many people were not very clear about the submission process of the journal, and the comments section was not very detailed. It was confusing to distinguish between "Under Consideration" and "Under Review". Below is the submission process:
January 6, 2025: Submitted, showing "Under Consideration"
January 22, 2025: Under Review
February 6, 2025: Received feedback: all three reviewers suggested minor revisions
February 13, 2025: Resubmitted after revisions
February 14, 2025: Under Review
March 4, 2025: Received feedback: all three reviewers suggested acceptance, editor requested revisions to figures and additional tweets
March 5, 2025: Resubmitted after revisions
March 12, 2025: Accepted.

(0) Thank | catalysischina

In the field of materials, at the level of AM/EES, one cannot usually submit to AEM/AFM/ACS nano/ESM. If these journals are still out of reach, then one would typically consider Science Bulletin. When looking for a job, an AFM paper is definitely more useful than Science Bulletin, by a thousand times. AFM is widely recognized as a top journal, whereas Science Bulletin is...

(0) Thank | penguin

Looking at your ID, I can tell that you usually use a Huawei phone, wear Li-Ning clothes, and enjoy watching the movie "Wolf Warrior".

(1) Thank | penguin

Carrying around a contemporary masterpiece is quite annoying. The relationship-based journal has hardly any serious articles. Those who can say hello can usually get published, while those who can't are never given a chance to be reviewed. They publish a bunch of letters every year to boost their impact factor.

(1) Thank | fission Yeast

Please translate the following passage into English: 1

(1) Thank | 小小小白X

The upstairs is really dark, and if you can submit to JACS, you should definitely submit to JACS first. Just because some articles are not accepted by JACS doesn't mean they are not good. Academician Xue Qikun's unconventional quantum Hall effect paper was not accepted by Science, but was submitted to NSR. Professor Li Yuliang's graphene acetylene paper was not accepted by any first-tier journals, but was eventually published in CC. It's important to focus on the quality of the articles rather than the prestige of the journal. It can only be said that this journal's electrocatalysis is actually similar to JACS, but not every article surpasses JACS.

(0) Thank | 稍远

I have never submitted to this journal, but I support domestic journals. The two people above seem to be eager to see Chinese journals decline, not supporting them and still making sarcastic remarks here. Speaking Chinese but not looking forward to China's success.

(0) Thank | King Baum

Haha, that cracked me up. Let me share mine: I submitted a paper to Science Bulletin this year. My first submission to Nature was rejected, and so was my submission to Science. I decided to submit to Science Bulletin and believe that in the future, Science Bulletin will be on par with Nature and Science in various fields. I have faith in the power of our domestic journals.

(0) Thank | penguin

Advanced scammer, everyone is trying to scam Jacs now.

(0) Thank | EricYoung