9.1, submitted; 9.19, still with editor.

(0) Thank | 不了

1. The article was submitted on December 24. It was Christmas, and it was delayed for a week. It was sent for review on January 3, and the comments of the first review was returned on February 12, and major revision was required. 2. The revision was submitted on February 24, and it was accepted on March 30. Looking into the rank, it ranks very high in solution thermodynamics. I feel okay.

(1) Thank | MetallTherom

I just had an article accepted and here is my experience: January 16 submission, then returned after a technical review. But there was no explanation, so I had to carefully read the guide for author, and found that the format was not correct. After the format was modified, resubmitted on January 23. It went to peer review on February 4. For four months after that, nothing; I could not stand it, so I sent a friendly reminder to the editor on June 4. The editor wrote back on June 11.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

You, I have been waiting for 12 days without any news. How are you now?

(0) Thank | 小花花a

Is the wait time with the editor long? It has been a week since I submitted my work and it is still with the editor.

(0) Thank | LIN

I would like to inquire why my submission has been in "with editor" status for a week. Is this normal?

(0) Thank | LIN

Hello, I saw in the tracking submission that a reviewer completed the review in five days, does this mean there is a high possibility of rejection?

(0) Thank | 想毕业的研究生

Hello, I saw in the tracking system that a reviewer completed the review in five days. Does this mean there is a high chance of rejection? It's so difficult

(0) Thank | 想毕业的研究生

3.11 submit
3.15 under review
5.06 required reviews completed
6.15 Major revision
6.26 revision submit
7.9 minor revision
7.10 revision submit
7.10 accept
Actually, the speed is quite fast. Contact the Elsevier customer service to urge the editor and speed up the review process.

(0) Thank | 爱1不会绝迹

I have submitted twice. The first time was for one month, and both reviewers rejected it with 10 opinions. The second time, it was rejected within two days with 10 opinions as well. It feels relatively easy. Now I am submitting the third article, and it has been exactly two months since the submission. The required reviews have been completed, so it should be soon. I hope for good luck!

(1) Thank | 爱1不会绝迹

Abbreviation Can be corrected: Fluid Phase Equilib

(0) Thank | huans

7 In the middle of the month, this journal is a relatively influential journal in thermodynamics. There are many sources of articles. Each year, 360 articles are included, and one day is average.In general, the article is required to be highly innovative and has a high demand for English.The impact factor is 2.379, and it feels like it will rise next year. The process is as follows: Apr 10, 2013 Submitted to Journal Apr 12, 2013 Editor Invited Apr 15, 2013 Technical Check In Progress Apr 16, 2013 Submissions Sen

(0) Thank | Anonymous

I submitted the manuscript on January 30th. Now I have also displayed the under review. I have sent many reminder letters, all of which are sinking into the sea. What is the situation?Have you encountered this situation?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

submitted for two and a half months, has been with editor, swollen what to do?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Last year in November, the end of April this year, JP O'Connell edited very well, personally modified a lot of grammar mistakes

(0) Thank | Anonymous

sometimes contributedThere will be review comments in 1 month. This is two months, and it is still in the review. It seems that the review cycle is different every time.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The draft submitted in November last year showed that it had come back in February this year. It was hard to press in the editor for two months and finally refused to help in the case of two directly accepting one rejection.Good time, I suggest you choose the editor not to choose TH.W. de Loos This person is very slow to recommend JP O'Connell editor at least to do things

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Jan 09, 2013 Submitted, March 29, 2013 returned to review comments, March 31, 2013 repaired, Apr 05, 2013 received mail was received.The editor's attitude is very good, very patient, and the requirements for small language errors are not particularly strict.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

My revised manuscript sent back more than twoIn the week, there is no big problem in reviewing the comments. How can the second-instance opinion not come back? Anxiety!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

I have selectd for this journal for more than two months. How can I not believe it?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

This journal journal focuses more on basic data.Modified twice and finally received.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Submitted a comment for one month, received directly after 2 weeks of repair, the journal is generally satisfied but the

(0) Thank | Anonymous

review time is a bit long, and the review was received.The comments were a little dizzy, and the editor sent me the opinions of a reviewer of someone else's article.However, the questions raised by the reviewers are very professional. Let me go back and study the theoretical literature for half a month and the comments are very long.The return is modified once and received.The article is a state equation associated with predicting vapor-liquid equilibrium. There is no innovation, and it is a good result to receive.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The first review is 3 months, the editor is very responsible.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

very fast, cycle 3 months, receiving

(0) Thank | Anonymous