I received the SI’s review invitation yesterday. At first glance, the newly released impact factor seemed okay, so I decided to agree to review. I hope SI will overcome all obstacles and live up to expectations.

(16) Thank | Shaw-Fare Chang

A recent article was just published, which was submitted and accepted in a total of 4 months. The editor-in-chief was very efficient!

(0) Thank | 佩洛西骚老马子吃屎长大的

He is asking all authors to confirm by email.

(0) Thank | 空叶

Oops, I just received this edited draft back for revisions as well.

(0) Thank | 空叶

Brother, who are you as an editor? He sent an email to all authors after the first review. Does he want all authors to confirm?

(0) Thank | 空叶

Met two strong opponents.

(0) Thank | 阿拉斯加

6.15 Accept invitation reviewer 2 → 1

(0) Thank | linlion

Everyone must avoid pitfalls! Submitted in August 2024. Over the next few months, the paper underwent four revisions, with each one carefully addressing the comments from reviewers and editors to improve the research content. After the second to last revision, all reviewers agreed to publish, while the editor suggested minor revisions. The minor revisions were promptly completed in early June 2025 with hope and resubmitted. Unexpectedly, a week later, a rejection notice was received, after a 10-month process. This was the first encounter with such a bizarre journal and editor (Rafael Kenji Nishihora), leaving one feeling very disappointed and confused. Hopefully, future authors can avoid this pitfall and not repeat the same mistakes.

(0) Thank | 仰望心空

Everyone must be careful to avoid falling into pitfalls!

(0) Thank | 仰望心空

It's very abstract. In early September 2024, I submitted to three reviewers. I am in theoretical computing. Except for minor revisions from the first reviewer, the other two required major revisions. The first reviewer seems to be Korean and also in computing (providing painless theoretical computing-related questions). The other two are experimental. The experimental reviewers kept asking for experimental data. Speechless ?, how can I provide experimental data when even my boss overseas couldn't get it done (if I could do experiments, why would I submit to this journal?). Then the editor raised more than 10 questions, also asking for experimental data. Finally, it was sent back for revisions. In early February 2025, all three reviewers recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected it. I then submitted to an international hydrogen energy journal and it was accepted. Fortunately, it wasn't accepted by the previous journal, which is in the 3rd tier, that would have been a loss.

(0) Thank | Gotham97

Met a couple of tough opponents.

(0) Thank | 阿拉斯加

Under review for about 10 days, invited 2+, but only one reviewer has agreed to review. Could it be because the journal's reputation is not good?

(0) Thank | linlion

Hello, I would like to ask how you send emails to the corresponding editor. My editor is Rafael Kenji Nishihora. I asked customer service and they only instructed me to send emails to the authorsupport email. I am really anxious for this article to graduate.

(0) Thank | StaRingQAQ

Classic Tom!

(0) Thank | 阿拉斯加

Brothers, submit your articles carefully.

Submitted in February 2025, feedback returned in mid-April, revisions due by the end of April.
RRC displayed around May 10th, no progress until May 30th.
Reminder sent on June 2nd, reply received on the 4th. The editor, Tom, claimed to have just returned from vacation and did not process the submission in a timely manner.
Two reviewers agreed to accept the article, one had a minor issue that needed to be fixed. Editor directly rejected the submission.

(0) Thank | Fdjy

Please be cautious when submitting, the first review required significant revisions. After the revisions were completed, all reviewers agreed to publish the paper, but the editor rejected it.

(0) Thank | Charlie-why

Submitted in early March, two reviewers accepted the invitation and completed the review 21 days later. On March 30, the editor provided 10 suggestions while the two reviewers combined had 11, resulting in a major revision. Everything seemed normal until April 17 when the manuscript was returned for revisions. Despite sending over 20 pages of responses thinking it would sway the reviewers, the editor decided to invite new reviewers who had not been involved previously. The manuscript entered the RRC process on April 28, with the dates of May 4 and May 9 changing twice but remaining in the RRC status. On May 20, an email inquiry was sent, and on May 21, the editor requested another major revision. Reviewers three and four had no major issues, while reviewer six, after affirming the work, suggested adding more experiments and characterizations to enhance the academic rigor and research value. This is for a second-tier journal that has dropped to the third tier, and with six reviewers involved, even my supervisor is speechless. While I do not deny the validity of the reviewers' suggestions, I question whether the standards of this journal are truly that high... There was no mention of editor number five in the correspondence, and based on previous comments, it is likely that reviewer five had no objections and the manuscript would be accepted for publication. This journal has two full-time editors, one named Tom and the other with a name starting with N. Authors encountering these two editors should consider themselves lucky.

(0) Thank | 阿拉斯加

5.20 reminder to submit the manuscript, but still no response.

(0) Thank | 阿拉斯加

After I entered RRC on April 28th, my status remained the same, but the date changed twice. The last date change was on May 9th, and since then there has been no movement. I am really frustrated.

(0) Thank | 阿拉斯加

The editor is so bad, the RRC status takes two weeks to process every time. My article has four reviewers, two accepted after revisions, two suggested major revisions, which the editor provided; after the first revision, all four reviewers thought it was acceptable, but the editor thought it didn't follow his suggestions, so another major revision was given; the second revision made many changes according to the editor's suggestions; after the revision, the editor rejected it. I am really frustrated, all reviewers agreed to accept it in the end, and it was revised according to the editor's suggestions, but it was still rejected. I have never seen such an editor, so slow and unreasonable. I will not submit to them again in the future, no wonder it went from being in the 2nd tier to the 3rd tier. When I initially submitted, it was in the 2nd tier, now it has dropped to the 3rd tier. Being rejected actually doesn't bother me, I will make some changes and submit to the 2nd tier again, just sharing my personal experience, hoping others can avoid the same pitfalls.

(0) Thank | physicsfeng

The editor is Xiaoyan Zheng, and the overall process is very fast, taking a total of two months. There are two reviewers for the first review, one for the second review after revisions, and one final reviewer with one remaining issue. After addressing the issue, two reviewers agree to accept the submission. The editor then seeks a third reviewer, and after the third review, the paper is accepted.

March 15 submitted
March 17 with editor
March 28 under review
April 8 revisions required from reviewer
April 9 reviewer comments received
April 16 revisions submitted
April 16 with editor
April 17 under review
April 25 second reviewer comments returned
April 25 revisions submitted
April 26 with editor
April 28 under review
May 6 third reviewer comments
May 12 revisions submitted
May 14 under review
May 16 accepted

(0) Thank | djj@0809

Enjoy your good luck.

(0) Thank | 祝我次次小修且必中

Which direction?

(0) Thank | 阿拉斯加

The editing efficiency is very high.

(0) Thank | 吴

I also encountered the same problem. The reviewer agreed with my article, but it was still rejected.

(0) Thank | raxyang