2020.9.14, submitted; 2020.10.10, major revision was required in the first review (one week was given); 2020.10.16, the revised manuscript was submitted. The first review had sharp words; two reviewers said it must be improved; two reviewers said it can be improved. There were about 10 comments raised in total. They said that one section of my article was confused and unclear, and there were several exclamation marks were used in the text. I wrote an 8-page reply, mainly to supplement the simulation process. And then, the evaluation was made, and all of the 5 reviewers accepted it. The reply “I do appreciate very much your response to my comments and also the improvements done in the paper.” 10.19, reducing the competition rate was required. There were more than 10% of the sentences were similar to my previous related conference paper. The editor required to reduce the competition rate, but did not specify how much it should be reduced. However, I tried my best. 10.20, the revised manuscript was resubmitted, and it was accepted in an hour. Summary: Some reviewers were still very responsible and will have some relatively in-depth comments; Some reviewers are not responsible. The fourth reviewer only gave me one sentence, and I didn’t know how to revise (according to his comment). The efficiency of the editor was high. He was online on weekdays and replied the email extremely fast. The difficulty of submission is slow, the speed was fast, but the fees are relatively high. There are advantages and disadvantages. But as the first SCI article in my life, I am very grateful.

(47) Thank | 木子

The manuscript was submitted on August 19. The first reviewer’s individual comments were received on August 26. The editor sent them to me in advance. The comments were ordinary; only one comment was relatively difficult to answer. The verification test was repeated to illustrate the problem. The revised manuscript was resubmitted in the afternoon of August 30. One major revision was given in the afternoon of September 7. There were three reviewers in total. The first reviewer praised me, and said nothing else. The second reviewer was the previous one. The third reviewer was relatively strict, who asked a lot of questions on sentences, and asked a question which was relatively difficult to answer. After thinking about it for two days, I finally answered it. I thought about it carefully and wrote a reply letter. The response letter of the first review was returned to the editor in the afternoon of September 11. The notice of acceptance was received on September 14. Proofreading was required on September 16. The last revision was made on September 17; the revised manuscript was submitted at 2 P.M., and the status changed to conversion skipped at 6 P.M. Two hours later, there was a heated discussion in the group. It turned out that the teacher was congratulating me, for the official acceptance of my article. And then I checked the website online. My hanging heart finally let go completely. Finally, let me make a comprehensive evaluation: The publication fee of this journal was high. However, the efficiency of the editors and the reviewers were very high. Generally speaking, the difficulty was not great. As long as your article is based on objective facts and data, and clearly stated, it basically will not be rejected. Timely rain, thanks to myself for hard work and the help of many people. It is my first SCI article in my life, and it is also a stepping stone to my Ph.D. application. I hope I can make persistent efforts in the future!

(14) Thank | THXqifei

As things have changed, let's talk about the results first. I wanted the result quickly for rewards, so I submitted it to this journal, but it was rejected. I resubmitted it to a Q 2-journal with an impact factor of more than 3, and it was accepted. Let's talk about the process. There were three reviewers, two of them whose opinions were very positive, agreed to accept it. The third one was argumentative. From the comments, it appeared that he has no in-depth understanding in this field, but he was fond of teaching others. I replied several pages and even drew an analysis chart to explain to him, but he didn't even talk about the article, and began to attack the language logic in my reply. In the second round, I indirectly said that this problem is a very basic recognized thing in our field and so on, and then it was rejected. Two acceptances, one rejection, and the editor rejected it. I don’t mean to discredit this journal; I just want to condemn those inner twisters who didn’t tend to accept articles, but made efforts to pick questions. PS, in order to explain to that argumentative reviewer, I had a little idea in the process of replying, combined with the things I said in reply, I wrote another article, it was irritating!

(62) Thank | 改革春风吹满地

Rejected without review.

(9) Thank | Sisi

2025.4.26 Pending review
2025.4.27 Under review Editor assignment

(0) Thank | 关山月ggg

Hello, may I ask how long it takes from submission to acceptance? What type of article did you submit?

(0) Thank | shine022

As a practitioner, I can tell you that the publication volume has decreased to half of what it was in 2022. Overall, this journal is still developing well and there is no need to worry about being removed from SCIE. However, it will be difficult to make academic breakthroughs unless the publication volume is significantly reduced.

(0) Thank | Marcus Feng

Twenty-two thousand two.

(0) Thank | 菲常美丽的巨兔

This thing is thrown really fast, too fast.

(0) Thank | 菲常美丽的巨兔

I am really scared too, just got hired.

(0) Thank | 菲常美丽的巨兔

The project deliverable was submitted, but it was not accepted for nearly a month. I'm afraid that this journal might end up sabotaging itself, as everything about it seems to be indicating a money-grabbing attitude.

(0) Thank | ST8456

How much does this layout cost?

(0) Thank | 王大官人

Is there a deadline for the second review? If one reviewer has completed their review but the other reviewer has not, will the editor continue to wait for the second reviewer to complete their review?

(0) Thank | xiaosang

It is outrageous to allow the publication of pseudoscientific quackery research in abstract journals.

(0) Thank | ctts

Please translate the following paragraph into English: Anti-revisionism

(0) Thank | Y.Wang

Special Issue by MDPI: Water and Energy Monitoring and Their Nexus
Special Issue Homepage: https://www.mdpi.com/topics/EBE4VA9471
Participating Journals: Data (ESCI, IF 2.2), Energies (SCIE, IF 3.0), Sensors (SCIE, IF 3.4), Sustainability (SCIE, IF 3.3), Water (SCIE, IF 3.0)
Deadline: March 31, 2025

There are currently 8 articles published in this special issue, all of which are original research articles. Scholars interested in the nexus between water and energy are welcome to submit their work through the special issue homepage!

(0) Thank | junyao

May I ask what happened afterwards?

(0) Thank | 一定要中

How are you doing now?

(0) Thank | sss.-

Hello, were you accepted for publication within a few days of submitting your work?

(0) Thank | hhhhhpph

Have you been hired?

(0) Thank | 好久不见

Special Issue in Energies: Biomass Pretreatment and Characterization for Advanced Biofuels and Biochemicals Production

Homepage: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/special_issues/05D54OU1A7
Submission deadline: February 10, 2025

Scholars in related fields are welcome to submit their work to this special issue. Please contact the guest editors (contact information in the image) before submission to enjoy a discount!

(0) Thank | 学术小藏獒

MDPI Topic: Energy Consumption Analysis and Characterization of Complex Systems
Homepage: https://www.mdpi.com/topics/80ltuygl18
Participating Journals: Buildings (SCIE, IF 3.1), Energies (SCIE, IF 3.0), Processes (SCIE, IF 2.8), Sustainability (SCIE/SSCI, IF 3.3), Smart Cities (ESCI, IF 7.0)
Submission Deadline: April 30, 2026

Scholars in the field of energy consumption analysis are welcome to participate. For inquiries about submitting to the relevant journals, please contact me!!!

(0) Thank | junyao

9.25 submitted, under review after 3 hours
9.28 pending major revision, 2 reviewers given 7 days
10.5 resubmitted
10.5 revised version under review
10.15 still under review for ten days
10.15 pending minor revisions
10.16 resubmitted
10.16 revised version under review
10.17 pending editor decision
10.19 paper accepted
10.20 pending English
10.20 English correction done
10.21 author proofreading
10.22 author proofreading resubmitted
10.22 pending conversion
10.22 website online

(0) Thank | leeee12

10.17 Minor repair
10.18 PED
10.23 APC payment

(0) Thank | 箜星

10.10 Overhaul in 7 days
3 reviewers
Reviewer 1 gave a list of comments: 2 yes, 2 can, 1 must
Reviewer 2 wrote a sentence with 5 yes
Reviewer 3 had few comments: 4 yes, 1 can

(0) Thank | 箜星