It was handled by the deputy editor Yasushi Sekine. 2020.08.17 submitted; 2020.08.19 handled by Associate Principal Editor; 2020.08.20 under review; 2020.10.06 major revise (4 reviewers, 2 minor revisions, 1 moderate revision, 1 major revision); 2020.10.28 resubmitted; 2020.11.06 required reviews completed; 2020.11.07 minor revise (the reviewer had only 1 minor question); 2020.11.10 resubmitted; 2020.11.12 with editor/under review (I thought it was not necessary to be sent for review, but it was finally sent for review. The deputy editor is extremely rigorous); 2020.11.14 accept. Overall, if the manuscript was sent to the Japanese editor-in-chief, there would be more reviewers, and the reviewers were very professional in understanding the article, which was very helpful to the improvement of the paper. This was the second article published on FUEL. We recognize this journal very much.

(7) Thank | kd无敌35

It is my first article, and it is finally accepted. I feel qualified to share my submission experience: 3.12, submission; 3.16, under review; 4.04, revisions: one major and one minor, and one month was given for revision; 5.04, revision submitted to journal; 5.08, under review; 6.06, required reviews completed; 7.06, revision. The above status lasted for a month. I really don’t want to wait anymore, so I sent a reminder letter. After sending it, the comments were returned on the next day. One reviewer accepted it and the other one raised some questions again; 7.16, under review; 10.06, another reminder letter was sent; 10.07 accept. The speed of Fuel in the first half of the year was pretty fast, however, in the second half of the year, the speed is quite slow. It was estimated that there were more people who submitted. After all, it has also been promoted to Q1. The email sent were through the submission system of Fuel. I think reminder is necessary, and the editor may have forgotten it after a long time. It may also the reviewers’ problems. Mine is because the reviewer didn’t submit the review comments, and the editor couldn’t make decision. Therefore, good luck to everyone.

(5) Thank | 12315

2020.5.1 submitted to journal; 2020.5.3 with editor; 2020.5.8 under review; 2020.6.26 under editor evaluation; 2020.7.6 revise, with two reviewers; 2020.7.15 revision submitted to journal; 2020.7.18 with editor; 2020.7.18 under review; 2020.8.2 required reviews completed; 2020.8.20 revise (I learned through customer service that there were only two reviewers, so required reviews completed indicated that the reviewers have all completed the review. But the editor didn’t notify the result. We waited for 18 days and couldn’t wait any longer. We urged the editor through the customer service of Elsevier. The result was given on the same day. So sometimes the editor may forget it and it’s necessary to urge it after a certain time. 2020.8.20 revision submitted to journal; 2020.8.22 with editor. It then was accepted about an hour later.

(4) Thank | 我是你何

Submitted to journal, February 17th; with editor, February 18th; under review, February 19th; under review, March 4th; under editor evaluation, March 12th; under editor evaluation, March 26th; revise (2 Major revisions; 1 Minor revision), March 27th; revision submitted to journal, April 29th; with editor, April 30th; under review, May 1st; required reviews completed, May 23rd; revise (2 accept; 1 Minor revision), May 26th; revision submitted to journal, May 27th; with editor, May 29th; under review, May 29th; required reviews completed, July 2th; completely accept, July 8th. Very rigorous. Two acceptance and a minor revision were given in the second review. However, it was sent for review again. It took another a month, otherwise the efficiency would be really high.

(6) Thank | 油气终结者

2019/7/26 Submission; 2019/8/20 The first review comments came back, two reviewers asked 16 questions. Revise. 2019/9/10 The first revised manuscript was submitted; 2019/12/29 It took a long three and a half months before the second review comments came back. The third reviewer had no comments. The fourth reviewer just asked some questions about sentences and grammar. The fifth reviewer asked 16 small questions. Revise. 2020/1/14 The second revised manuscript was submitted; 2020/2/1 Reject. The fifth reviewer suggested rejection, and the editor made a decision to reject the manuscript, but the reason for rejection of the fifth reviewer was very insufficient and very stubborn. He misunderstood some of the experimental data included. The esterification reaction was catalyzed after the modification of the raw material. Therefore, the pore size data of the material before and after the modification were listed, but the reviewer even misread the pore size of the material before modification as that of after modification, and rejected the manuscript, saying that the pore size was too large to meet the experimental requirements. Although we have stated in the response letter, the reviewer still did not read the article carefully and took it out of context. This showed that the reviewers did not understand the article at all, nor did they read our response letter seriously!!! And then jump to a decision to reject the manuscript!! No one would have thought that after two revisions in half a year, the manuscript was rejected in the end! We wrote a letter of appeal to the editor in chief, and have not received a reply yet.

(9) Thank | Gentle-

Luck matters sometimes when submitting. For the same journal, the review speed is different from person to person. And you should have a good attitude toward it~ 3.20 submission; 3.21 handled by Principal Editor Zuohua Huang, Ph.D.; 3.24 handled by Associate Principal Editor Yasushi Sekine, Ph.D. (Professors were really super fast and status were required reviews completely. And they will give you feedback on the same day. They were even given during the holidays in Japan twice, and they were still working. Thumb-up, thumb-up, thumb-up, awesome!). 3.27 Under review. In April the time updated twice. 4.29 First review ends (4 reviewers, 2 of them required major revision, 2 of them required minor revision. I wrote 24 pages of reply to them. It should be answered seriously). 5.15 re-submitted 5.18 under review 5.20 completely. And it was under review after a while (Probably only 2 revisions) 6.4 I thought time changed and went fast. Ha ha. 6.7 accept. I wish you all good luck~

(24) Thank | Egbert.Liu

May. 27 submitted but June 4 returned by the editor, asking us to provide black and white figures, and the manuscript can't exceed 30 pages (we modified the margins to solve this). June 8 under review; June 23 required reviews completed; July 4 revise, two reviewers both requested minor revisions, and the editor gave us 15 days. July 12 Submitted a revised verison; July 13 under review; Aug. 13 required reviews completed; Aug. 15 accepted; Aug. 16 proof. A relatively smooth submission. The impact factor has risen to 4.6, and this is a long-standing journal in the energy category. The associate editor is very responsible and returned the review comments fast. The revised paper was sent to the reviewers even if it was just minor revision, so it took a month to get the results.

(274) Thank | 875138719@qq.com

Anyway, as long as you don't evaluate the fund or the Yuobo, and only meet the graduation requirements and evaluate the school's internal scholarships, this journal can still be used.

(0) Thank | X所长

It doesn't matter, anyway our school follows JCR.

(0) Thank | 李拾贰

No, at least the editor assigned to me did not mention this.

(0) Thank | 李拾贰

Did the editor ask you to upload the data csv file? Is this necessary?

(0) Thank | Austins

Could you please clarify if it is mandatory to submit a CSV file containing your parcel data before submitting the edited letter, and to conduct an online test at http://authortools.elsevier.com/interactiveplots/verification?

(0) Thank | Austins

When will WE submit for review?

(0) Thank | Docter Wei

We are producing traditional fossil fuels, without any fancy attributes. Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity, editor!

(0) Thank | 李拾贰

2025-2-8 Resubmit
2025-2-8 With editor
2025-2-10 Editor handles Jorge Ancheyta
2025-2-15 Under review
2025-2-26 Required reviews completed
2025-3-2 Major (Three reviewers, 40+ issues, additional data needed)
2025-3-12 Revised
2025-3-13 Under review
2025-3-29 Required reviews completed
2025-4-1 Minor (One small issue)
2025-4-2 Revised
2025-4-4 Under review
2025-4-17 Required reviews completed
2025-4-23 Decision made-Accept

(0) Thank | 李拾贰

2024-12-18 Submitted to journal
2024-12-18 With editor
2024-12-19 Editor handles Jorge Ancheyta
2024-12-21 Under review
2025-1-19 Required reviews completed
2025-2-6 Decision made-Reject (language and formatting issues)

(0) Thank | 李拾贰

2.9 submitted to journal
2.10 with editor
2.14 w e
2.23 under review (invited 7, accepted 4)
3.9 required reviews completed
3.10 rrc
3.15 revise
4.3 w e
4.5 u r
4.6 rrc
4.8 rrc
4.13 rrc
4.20 accept
Editor Kevin Van Geem
Submitted as first tier, published as second tier, feeling frustrated.

(0) Thank | 就不发natural了

Today the status date has been updated, but it still shows "With Editor". Hopefully it will be sent for review soon.

(0) Thank | Docter Wei

I am also "a".

(0) Thank | Docter Wei

Submission on April 7, 2025
As of April 8, 2025 WE

(0) Thank | mshstill

20250409 Submitted to Journal

(0) Thank | Docter Wei

2.11 submitted to journal
2.15 under review
3.4 revise
3.22 revision submission
3.24 under review
3.28 accept

(0) Thank | 延毕生

Edited by Jorge Ancheyta, everything is processed quite quickly.
Accepted on 3-28.

(0) Thank | 小学僧

3-15 resubmit
3-18 under review
3-23 rrc

(0) Thank | 小学僧

How is it going? Did you get stuck for 15 days and finally win?

(0) Thank | 俺是科研小白菜