6.3, submission; 6.4, under review; 6.23, major revision. There were 2 reviewers, and the comments are positive, but there are many. There were 25 comments raised by the two reviewers; 7.23, submitted after revision. But due to too many comments, there were a lot of experiments to supplement. In addition to the pandemic, and the graduation, one month was not enough at all. I applied to the editor foe one-month extension, but it was still delayed in the end. 9.3, submitted revision; 9.4, under review; 9.7, major revision. There was only reviewer 1 in the second review, who was not satisfied with the revision, and said three of his comments were not well replied; 10.8, the revised manuscript was submitted; 10.7, submitted 2nd revision. In fact, according to the comment of the second review, I felt that the reviewer was not very professional, and the comments raised were not professional. I didn’t revise it according to his comments, but gave detailed reasons; 10.8, under review; 10.16, accept. Generally speaking, the review speed of Chemical Engineering Journal is quite satisfactory. The editor is Professor Pan from Nanjing University. Except for the comments of the reviewers in the second review, which were slightly unprofessional, the two reviewers in the first review were professional. Fortunately, after the second revision, the reviewers readily approved our response. Thank you very much. I hope Chemical Engineering Journal will get better and better. My article this time is about carbon material adsorption and removal of liquid phase pollutants. The theme is actually relatively traditional.

(3) Thank | heelenc

The article was submitted on April 29; The result was returned on May 28; major revision was required, and one month was given. There were 6 reviewers, 5 of them required major revision, the other one rejected it. Dur to the influence of the pandemic, I was still at home at that time. I thought of delaying it for two weeks, but did not receive a reply, so I had to hurry up to revise it. The reply was completed with 17 pages, and the content was comparable to the main text; 6.28, submitted to the journal. During the period, the status “required reviews completed” changed 4 times; 7.24, major revision was required. The comments of four reviewers were returned by the editor, two of them were satisfied and agreed to accept it, but the other two weren’t satisfied. The editor asked to continue to revise; 8.4, submitted to the journal; 8.19, required reviews completed; 9.7, minor revision was required. The sixth reviewer continued to ask me to supplement a minor issue; 9.9, submitted to the journal; 10.9, required reviews completed. It was accepted that night. Thanks to my supervisor for continuously helping me revise it over and over again, and thanks to the editor Soryong Chae, Ph.D, for giving me the opportunity to revise it again and again. I realized the rigorous and meticulous spirit of the journal. I hope you don’t be impatient in this process, and patiently answer the reviewers’ suggestions. It’s really useful.

(6) Thank | guoguo

Fortunately, I have an article accepted by Chemical Engineering Journal. I forgot to share my submission experience at the time. Now I add it. The article was submitted on August 7 2018; It took 35 days for the first review. There were 4 reviewers who raised 20 questions in total. In general, the comments were positive; Major revision was required by the editor, and the revision time was 30 days. The actual revision time was 30 days. The revised article was submitted on October 11 2018. The notice of acceptance was received on October 26 2018. It took 15 days for the second revision. The entire submission process was relatively fast, and the editor and the reviewers were especially responsible and rigorous. On the basis of innovation, this article also needed sufficient and systematic data support. Chemical Engineering Journal gives me two deep impressions: 1. The number of reviewers is generally more than that of other journals. For materials science and engineering-new energy journals, the number of reviewers is usually 2 or 3, but Chemical Engineering Journal usually has 4 to 5 reviewers; The advantage is that the evaluation is more objective and comprehensive, and the editor has a greater chance of requiring revisions; In addition, being able to convince so many reviewers one by one is also a strong affirmation of your own work; 2. I personally feel that practical value of the final effect of the articles published in Chemical Engineering Journal is higher than that of other similar journals. In the end, let me introduce this article: Preparation and characterization of corrugated graphene material and its application in flexible supercapacitors. Download address of the article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.10.187 Hope to learn, communicate and progress with you.

(52) Thank | Gouji Ye

2019.11.09, submitted; 2020.01.01, major revision; 2020.02.02, resubmitted; 2020.02.26, minor revision; 2020.030.5, accept; 2020.03.06, online. There were 3 reviewers, 2 minor revisions and 1 rejection. The editor will not reject the article for a reviewer without considering other reviews’ comments. The attitude is the first; please cherish the revision chance. In this paper, an organic porous adsorbent is prepared by click polymerization, which utilizes the synergy of dipole-π and π-π stacking to efficiently adsorb TNT. Title: A simple approach to prepare isoxazoline-based porous polymer for the highly effective adsorption of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT): catalyst-free click polymerization between an in situ generated nitrile oxide with polybutadienehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.124674

(10) Thank | pHD

During my master's degree, two articles were submitted and eventually accepted by Chemical Engineering Journal. I feel that the editor Dimitris I. Kondarides, Ph.D. in the field of new materials was nice, and the processing articles efficiency was very high. I wish Chemical Engineering Journal to be better. Share my complete submission process for your reference, and I wish you good luck! 06 Sep 2019, submitted to journal; 09 Sep, resubmitted (technical check); 09 Sep, submitted to journal; 13 Sep, with editor; 13 Sep, under review; 17 Sep, under editor evaluation; 19 Sep, under editor evaluation; 06 Oct, under editor evaluation; 09 Oct, revision (editor decision: Major Revision) (two minor revisions, two major revisions); 23 Oct, revision submitted to journal; 25 Oct, with editor; 25 Oct, under review; 06 Nov 2019, completed accept.

(15) Thank | zzl13

Let me share the submission experience and thoughts with you. The manuscript was submitted on August 7th, 2018. The turnaround time for the first review was approximately 35 days. The four reviewers asked nearly 20 questions in total. Generally speaking, the comments were relatively positive. A major revision was required by the editor, who let me revise it in 30 days. The actual revision time used was 30 days. The revision was sent back on October 11th, 2018. The acceptance notification was received on October 26th, 2018. The turnaround time for the second review was 15 days. The entire review process was relatively fast. The editors and reviewers were particularly responsible and rigorous. Sufficient and systematic data support are also needed on the basis of innovation. Chemical Engineering Journal gave me a deep impression at two points: (1) The number of reviewers is generally more than that of other journals. For materials science and engineering-new energy journals, the number of reviewers is usually 2–3, but CEJ usually invite 4–5 reviewers. It's harder to get accepted in this case. The advantage is that such evaluations are more objective and comprehensive, which is of great help to the improvement of the article. In addition, being able to convince so many reviewers one by one is also powerful affirmation of their own work. (2) In my opinion, the articles on CEJ show higher practical value than other similar journals. Finally, let me introduce the work of this article. It is about the preparation and characterization of graphene film materials and their application in flexible supercapacitors. The article can be downloaded at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.10.187. I hope to learn, communicate and make progress together with you.

(15) Thank | Gouji Ye

Dealing with the reviewers’ edits and suggestions was time-consuming and exhausting. It took about 3 months for the entire submission process to be complete. Despite the amount of comments provided by the reviewers, they were professional and supportive (I think they knew I was a graduate student, haha). Planning to submit my next manuscript to this journal!

(3) Thank | Tammy

Soak in the joy, welcome good luck, seek a soft-hearted editor for review, seek submission, seek major revisions.

(0) Thank | 某位普通用户

After 10 days, it is finally under review. I saw that 2 reviewers have accepted the invitation, good luck to the kind-hearted reviewers, hoping to receive the news for major revisions! Hopefully, hopefully!

(0) Thank | island97

Receive good luck every day, receive approval, receive acceptance.

(0) Thank | 画个圈圈兜住幸福

Get good luck, hit, hit, hit.

(0) Thank | 欢乐马09

You are so fast. I submitted the revised version on April 19th, and it was accepted on April 20th. It is still accepted until April 28th.

(0) Thank | 不能熬夜的科研dog

Good luck, I hope it will be smoothly reviewed.

(0) Thank | 画个圈圈兜住幸福

Feb 25, 2025 Manuscript submit,
Mar 09, 2025 under review,
Apr 02, 2025 Major revision,
Apr 17, 2025 Revised manuscript submit,
Apr 19, 2025 Under Review,
Apr 28, 2025 Accept;
Thanks to editors Todd Hoare, McMaster University; Aaron Elbourne, RMIT University, very prompt and responsible!

(0) Thank | 颖妹

Soak in the joy and embrace the review! Embrace good luck! Embrace acceptance!

(0) Thank | Augu*tumn

Good luck!!! It's been 20 days since the second revision was sent back, but still no news! Please let the reviewer be lenient and pass it!

(0) Thank | SYSLGJ

The article submitted on April 12th is still in the hands of the editor, it's too slow.

(0) Thank | slrky

Even now, the Required Reviews Completed status has not changed, not even the date.

(0) Thank | nikolength

Recently it seems to be very slow, my revised suggestions have been in the hands of the editor for 10 days.

(0) Thank | 不能熬夜的科研dog

Oh, it's been nearly two weeks.

(0) Thank | AAACcEPT

4.27 Rejected

(0) Thank | AAACcEPT

4.25 submission, welcome luck, welcome review, welcome acceptance.

(0) Thank | 画个圈圈兜住幸福

Submitted on April 25, still waiting for submission to the journal. Good luck with the review process and acceptance.

(0) Thank | 画个圈圈兜住幸福

Submitted, it's been half a month, hoping for good luck, waiting for review, waiting for publication!!!

(0) Thank | slrky

Please accept good luck, currently RRC, seek reception.

(0) Thank | 研究小白熊