I want to submit to this journal, but I can't find the link to the submission. Please help me, thank you!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The submission deadline is in November, with the initial review and major revisions in January, resubmission for review in March, minor revisions within 15 days of the second review, and acceptance after the second revision. Overall, the reviewers are very professional and have greatly helped improve the quality of the paper.

(0) Thank | danniel

Hello, how are you? How long did it take for your application to move from submitted to the next step?

(0) Thank | 水云身

Feb 06, 2025, Submitted to Journal
It's been ten days since submission and there has been no response.

(0) Thank | 清风徐来Xu

10.27 submit to the journal
10.29 under review
11.25 major revision 2nd reviewer
12.9 revise
12.10 accept
Roberto Manuel M. Torresi has very high editing efficiency, processes submissions quite quickly, and the entire submission process is smooth. It is a very good journal.

(0) Thank | ichika

2024.8.12 submit to the journal
2024.8.13 with editor
2024.8.13 under review
2024.9.4 major revision with 2 reviewers
2024.9.24 revise 
2024.9.25 under review
2024.10.6 accept

(0) Thank | corsci

Received at Editorial Office
23 Jun 2024
Article revised
23 Jul 2024
Article accepted for publication
31 Jul 2024
Can I move up to Zone 2 and turn my bicycle into a motorcycle?

(0) Thank | 菜鸟+1

The review results will be available in 20 days. Today, I will make revisions and resubmit. Please approve.

(0) Thank | 菜鸟+1

The submission process has already been accepted and recorded.
12/3/2021 Submission
1/26/2022 Review comments
3/2/2022 Submission of review comments
5/30/2022 Acceptance
The questions raised by the four reviewers were very professional, and the response to the review comments was almost 40 pages long. My supervisor jokingly said that the length of responding to the review comments is almost as much as writing an article. Thanks to Professor Guobao Xu! Hope the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry can continue to excel

(0) Thank | kb24

Submitted in mid-July, revised on September 1st, quickly under review again. Waiting and waiting, the system still shows "Review invitations accepted: 0". I have written inquiries about the situation, but there has been no change. From September 1st to October 19th, there has been no change in the status of the second review. It's really frustrating

(0) Thank | hello2015

Yes

(0) Thank | 不爬树的猴子

A very professional journal, divided into three sections by a certain domestic research system, real Yalang arrogance

(1) Thank | 不爬树的猴子

Those who understand know the division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

(0) Thank | dawndp

On the page for choosing whether to use OA, OA is above and below there is another option called Submission, which does not require money.

(0) Thank | Meander

Hello, is this a mixed journal of OA and non-OA? Why is there a requirement to pay publication fees in the final step of submission? And how can I choose the non-OA option in the final step?

(0) Thank | lixiaoxi

Hello, excuse me, how can I choose the non-OA option for submission?

(0) Thank | lixiaoxi

Hello, excuse me. I would like to ask if this is a mixed journal of OA and non-OA? Why is there a requirement to pay for page fees in the final step of submission? And how can I choose the non-OA option in the last step?

(0) Thank | lixiaoxi

Dec 5 Submission (Submitted to journal)
Dec 7 With editor
Dec 9 Under review
Dec 25 Major revision
Jan 16 Revisions submitted to journal
Jan 17 With editor/ under review
Jan 23 Accepted

The research topic is the treatment of refractory pollutants in water using modified electrodes. The three reviewers raised a total of 13 questions, mainly focusing on the analysis of the characterization results of the modified electrodes (10/13). In addition, among the 13 questions, 6 required additional experiments, and 7 focused on the rigor of the analysis of the existing experimental results. The major revision was given 20 days. Overall, it was a very smooth submission. Thanks to Editor Roberto Manuel M. Torresi and other staff members of the editorial department for their hard work.

(1) Thank | Meander

The domestic partition is really hilarious. This damn article from WOS Zone 1 has been transformed into a Zone 3 article in China.

(0) Thank | 牛逼的王教授

Overall, the submission process was fast. The first review took 17 days, and the second review took less than 7 days. Each time, the submission was with the editor on the same day and under review on the next day. The first review required major revisions and there were a total of 13 questions from the two reviewers. Some of the questions were difficult to answer and there was a request to add experiments, which was given a 20-day deadline for revision. In conclusion, the reviewers followed standard procedures, and the efficiency of the editor was extremely high. Lastly, I would like to thank the reviewers for their accurate comments, as well as Professor Xia from Nanjing University and Professor Marcin Opallo from Poland.

(1) Thank | 材料学子0827

Translated into English, the text says: "2022.7.4 has been submitted, result unknown."

(2) Thank | 材料学子0827

12.24 submit to the journal
12.24 with editor
12.25 under review
2.27 major revision by 2 reviewers
3.16 revise
3.17 under review
3.29 accept

(0) Thank | corsci

Editor-in-Chief J.M. Feliu's work efficiency deserves praise.

(1) Thank | xiaojianrong531

Aug 21, 2021 submitted to Journal
Aug 23, 2021 with editor
Aug 24, 2021 under review
Aug 31, 2021 Required Reviews Completed
Sep 01, 2021 Revise (minor) Although it is a minor revision, there are more than ten comments.
Sep 18, 2021 Revision submission, With Editor
Sep 20, 2021 Completed - Accept Each step was quite quick, worth submitting.

(1) Thank | xiaojianrong531

2021.05.13 Manuscript Submitted
2021.05.20 Under Review
There was no progress until July. On July 28th, I sent an email to urge the editor, and the editor replied that one of the two reviewers had already submitted their comments and they were now waiting for the opinion of the other reviewer. I was asked to be patient.
2021.07.30 Required Reviews Completed
2021.07.31 Reject
Throughout the process, both the reminders and responses from the editor were good, but the opinions given by the two reviewers were completely different. One reviewer's questions and suggestions were constructive and helpful, providing valuable insights for revising the paper. However, the other reviewer seemed to have been rushed and didn't have time to thoroughly review the paper. They randomly pointed out a problem that was not relevant to the article and rejected it for not meeting the requirements.

(8) Thank | Dellamoffy