2020.1.27, submitted to journal; 3.1, under review, and the date changed 4 times; 4.19, major revision. There were 3 reviewers, and all of them required revision; 5.18, submitted to journal; 5.22, under review; 6.18, required review completed; 7.7, major revision, R1, one acceptance, and one reviewer was added; 7.13, submitted to journal, with editor; 7.14, with editor; 7.19, under review; 8.12, required reviews completed; 8.17, minor revision, R1, reviewer 2 accepted it. The reviewer added in the second reviewed raised comments; 8.20, submitted to journal, with editor; 9.5, under review; 10.5, sent email to the editor, and the status of the manuscript changed to decision in progress; 10.7, minor revision was required at that night; 10.8, the revised manuscript was submitted in the morning, with editor; 2020.10.8. it was accepted at night. It was slow, and the waiting was suffering. The editor and the reviewers were friendly.

(3) Thank | red sun

I saw a lot of news about JCP on the Internet, both good and bad. I would like to share a little bit of my own humble opinion here. Please don’t complain if you don’t like it. I submitted an article to JCP before, and the first review speed was very fast. About two months later the review comments came back. It was a bit scary that there were 6 reviewers, which is the largest number of reviewers and comments I had seen. Reviewers' comments were very pertinent, which also shew that my research ability or writing level was limited, so I got so many comments. This also showed that the journal attached great importance to manuscript review. But one of the reviewers had very sharp opinions and criticized me very much. At the end of his comments, I was asked to refer to (i.e. cite) six articles. I found that the authors were all the same person. This meant that this reviewer asked me to cite his articles. To be honest, this kind of reviewer is annoying. It is said that JCP has a high self-citing rate, but the volume of this journal is also large, and a person who wants to submit to a journal must first know what kind of articles the journal will accept, so I think this is acceptable. Also, the main theme of this journal is clean production and energy, which should be reflected in the introduction and conclusion. So when I wrote it, I referred to many articles reflecting this theme in this journal. If you refer to an article, you have to cite it, which is understandable. Furthermore, I personally feel that there are only good or bad articles but no good or bad journals. If you do like a journal, you can submit to it. If you don't like it, you can submit to something else. Each takes what you need, and finds the suitable one.

(536) Thank | Omair

2020.02.01, submitted; 2020.02.06, with editor; 2020.02.09, under review; 2020.02.26, under editor evaluation; 2020.03.08, major revision; 2020.05.09, revision submitted; 2020.05.12, under review; 2020.05.17, required reviews completed; 2020.05.26, decision in process; 2020.05.27, minor revision; 2020.05.27, revision submitted; 2020.05.28, with editor; 2020.06.01, required reviews completed; 2020.06.11, decision in process; 2020.06.11, accept. There were three reviewers, two agreed to accept it, and the other one had sharp words, who raised more than 20 questions and required me to supplement experiments. Thanks to the editors for showing mercy. During the pandemic, the speed was very slow. I logged in every day to check it out. I was anxious. It was finally accepted. Thank you for sharing!

(7) Thank | 木易1

2019.11.14, submitted; 2019.11.15, with editor; 2019.11.24, under review; 2019.12.11, under review; 2019.12.15, under review; 2019.12.22, under review; 2020.01.11, under editor evaluation; 2020.01.26, major revision; 2020.02.24, revision submitted; 2020.02.25, with editor; 2020.03.01, under review; 2020.03.09, required reviews completed; 2020.03.15, accepted. 2020.03.20, proof. It was the second time to submit to the Journal of Chemical Physics. There were twists and turns in this review. It took more than 2 months to receive the review comments, and it took 4 months from submission to acceptance. The comments of the editor and reviewers were very profound! Thanks to editor Panos Seferlis and the reviewers for their work! I hope this journal will get better and better. If there is progress in energy and environmental, I will submit to it again.

(8) Thank | 流落de小奶牛

2019-01-25 submitted to journal; 2018-01-26 with editor; 2018-02-05 under review; 2019-03-16 major revision; 2019-04-17 revision submitted to journal; 2019-04-19 with editor; 2019-04-19 under review; 2019-05-07 minor revision; 2019-05-21 revision submitted to journal; 2019-05-22 with editor; 2019-05-22 minor revision; 2019-05-23 revision submitted to journal; 2019-05-24 with editor; 2019-05-27 minor revision; 2019-06-28 revision submitted to journal; 2019-06-30 accept; 2019-07-11 Online. Reviewer comments are very pertinent, but the editor is a bit of problem.

(4) Thank | Cowadopt

Actually more than 14 months. 21 Apr 2019 Accepted; 20 Apr 2019 With Editor; 17 Apr 2019 Revision Submitted to Journal; 13 Apr 2019 Minor Revision; 14 Mar 2019 Under Review; 27 Oct 2018 Under Review; 3 Aug 18 Under Review; 2 Aug 18 With Editor; 1 Aug 18 Revision Submitted to Journal; 1 Aug 18 Revision Needs Approval; 1 Aug 18 Building PDF; 12 May 18 Incomplete; 12 May 18 Revise; 12 May 18 Author Declines to Revise; 11 May 18 Revise; 11 May 18 Decision in Process; 29 Jan 18 Under Review; 27 Jan 18 With Editor; 25 Jan 18 Submitted to Journal.

(2) Thank | yiersan

Five months from submission (May 2018) to accept (Oct 2018). Not bad.

(4) Thank | o(∩_∩)o 哈哈

Please tune the carburetor for better air intake.

(0) Thank | 努力再努力呀

Basking in the joy, worshipping the big shots.

(0) Thank | Ivan99

2025-8-8 under review (Completed: 0, Accepted: 1, Invited: 4)
2025-8-10 under review (Completed: 0, Accepted: 3, Invited: 4)

(0) Thank | @@@@@@@@。

This manuscript was transferred from JEM, where the previous reviewer disappeared during the second review, and the new reviewer's AI review was rejected. This time in JCLP, there were two reviewers, one positive and one negative. The third reviewer did not provide feedback in a timely manner, so the editor chose to reject the manuscript. In total, it took over four months, and the process for this manuscript was really quite tumultuous.

(0) Thank | 中国抽象院院士

2025-8-8 under review (Completed: 0, Accepted: 1, Invited: 4)

(0) Thank | @@@@@@@@。

This is too fast.

(0) Thank | 小柯123

2025.8.07 Rework

(0) Thank | @@@@@@@@。

DIP, take a deep breath and relax.

(0) Thank | Iniessiii

JCP is inherently slow. It is normal for the process to take one to two months with the editor.

(0) Thank | @@@@@@@@。

Why is it still in WE when it was thrown at 7.3?

(0) Thank | 小柯123

Did the editor ask you to resubmit, or did you decide to resubmit on your own?

(0) Thank | ahehe

It must be good news.

(0) Thank | @@@@@@@@。

2025.7.26 submitted
2025.7.28 with editor
20258.03 No results yet.

(0) Thank | 风

DIP, embrace good luck!

(0) Thank | keyanzhisi

In June 2025, two additional reviewers' comments were received, but the editor sent another reviewer. 
In July 2025, one more reviewer was sent by the editor, but there was no response. The editor then sent another reviewer. 
In August 2025, one more reviewer was sent by the editor, but there was no response. The editor then sent another reviewer. 
Waiting for your 340th day.

(0) Thank | peterchang

If a manuscript is still in "with editor" status after a month, the likelihood of it being sent for review is not very high.

(0) Thank | @@@@@@@@。

250801, still at WE

(0) Thank | 嘻嘻哈哈小鱼

7:30 AM Sub
7:30 AM we

(0) Thank | 亲爱的哦豆豆