In the first submission, there were two reviewers. One required a minor revision, and the other suggested revisions and resubmitted. Zhong Zhang rejected and suggested resubmitting. For the second time, we revised it based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmitted it. Then one reviewer agreed to accepted and another one required a major revision, Zhong Zhang rejected it again, without any clear reason... According to the analysis of my teachers, the editors should look down on this kind of articles because they are about traditional materials... It was a waste of time. the editor’s opinion is really important, but since you don’t like it, why would you send it for review???

(6) Thank | 木点点点

2019.3.9-submit; 2019.4.15-Mandatory revision, all three reviewers agreed accept it with revision; 2019.5.10-resubmit; 2019.5.12-under view; 2019 .5.23-accept. Special thanks to the editor Jang Kyo Kim for his recognition of the paper. The efficiency is also very high. I look forward to the next submission...

(8) Thank | FDR225757

Submitted on January 15th, and sent for review a week later. The first review comments were given on January 31. There were two requiring minor revisions and one suggesting rejection. The editor gave the opportunity for major revisions. We carefully revised the manuscript according to the comments. Three weeks after revision, the reviewer who rejected the manuscript before asked us two questions. It was accepted one week after we replied. The overall speed of the journal is relatively fast. I strongly recommend the editor of Jang Kyo Kim in the Asia-Pacific region, whose processing speed of the manuscript is quite fast, and each status wouldn’t last for more than 2 days. Thank you, editor Kim!

(0) Thank | 策马狂奔跑

Compos Part A publishes studies on traditional composite materials, especially polymer-based composite materials. Compos Part A is one of only two second-tier journals in this field. Based on my personal experience, the reviewers are rigorous and professional. However, the questions raised convinced me that this is one of those journals were your manuscript is arbitrarily rejected. The editors are helpful, but they don’t provide an explanation for rejection. Some people say that the rejection rate of this journal is 80%!

(45) Thank | Anonymous

2024.11.6 submit
2024.12.3 under review
2024.12.11 under review
2024.12.20 under review
2024.12.30 under review
2025.1.2 under review
2025.1.13 under review
2025.1.23 under review
2025.3.13 under review
2025.3.21 under review
2025.4.12 under review
2025.5.12 under review
2025.5.15 required reviews complete
2025.5.18 mandatory revision
2025.5.30 submit
2025.6.2 under review
2025.6.9 required reviews complete
2025.6.11 accept
A total of 30+ reviewers were invited before and after.

(0) Thank | ATOM

5.8 - submitted to journal
5.11 - with editor
5.14 - under review
5.15 - invitation accepted 1
5.27 - invitation accepted 2
5.29 - reviews completed 1
6.4 - minor revisions given
6.9 - "under review"
6.11 - accept

(0) Thank | warrior-30

20240630 submission
20241228 minor revision
20250116 revised submission
20250313 minor revision
20250316 revised submission
20250329 minor revision
20250411 revised submission
20250428 minor revision
20250507 revised submission
20250523 accepted

(0) Thank | Pu

Received at Editorial Office on January 20, 2025
Article revised on May 9, 2025
Article accepted for publication on May 20, 2025

(0) Thank | JLU-Nature

25.05.15 Received
Wish Part A greater success!

(0) Thank | DLDL

Submission on 25.03.13
Minor revisions on 25.04.14
Resubmission for revision on 25.04.30
Overall, the journal is very efficient and the editors are diligent and responsible. The reviewers are likely experts in the field, as the revised manuscript has significantly improved in quality. Hopefully, we will have a positive outcome.

(0) Thank | DLDL

25.04.18 submitted to journal
25.04.22 with editor

(0) Thank | 张小

1.9 Modify key words and delete words in the uploaded file.
1.13 with editor
1.17 under review, there was a reviewer who submitted comments in early March due to the Spring Festival break, while another reviewer, who is likely a senior expert, took a long time to submit comments, but the comments were very few.
4.3 Minor revisions required, with a 15-day deadline for resubmission.
4.12 Submit revised documents.
4.22 Accept
A special thank you to the editor for being very diligent and responsible. I should help to urge the reviewers next. Thank you very much.

(0) Thank | ggobone

May I ask how long the review process usually takes for reviewers in this journal?

(0) Thank | 雨能下不停

Still Zone 2.

(0) Thank | 龙之弄

Comrades, has this journal been upgraded? What's the verdict?

(0) Thank | hw

The editor is responsible for being meticulous and reviewing the manuscript promptly.

(0) Thank | 哈哈

2024.11.1 Submit
2025.1.1 Revise
2025.1.15 Submit
2025.1.25 with editor

(0) Thank | Kinglle

In my mind, Part A > B.

(0) Thank | Scienk

May I ask if the technical review for Part A conducted by the experts should not exceed 20 pages, does this include the author's contributions and acknowledgements or not?

(0) Thank | hht019

It's difficult.

(0) Thank | 龙之弄

Just like you, only one expert has accepted the review for me. I wonder if there will be more invited reviewers in the future.

(0) Thank | Kinglle

Can we return to District One this year?

(0) Thank | 66666666666666

Hello, may I ask how many opinions from reviewers are needed? Will the editor send invitations to the relevant reviewers? Thank you.

(0) Thank | to_KinLe

Invite 2 experts, only one expert accepted. Is it possible to no longer invite additional experts and only have this one expert provide feedback?

(0) Thank | Kinglle

Number 30
Nov 05, 2024 Submitted to Journal
Nov 07, 2024 Editor Invited
Nov 08, 2024 With Editor
Nov 10, 2024 With Editor
Nov 13, 2024 Under Review - 4 invitations for review, 1 accepted.

(0) Thank | to_KinLe