The reviewer is very responsible and the questions are very professional.The review time is very fast.It was hired after minor repairs.Let's share it 72554986

(0) Thank | 72554986@qq.com

Submission for 16 days to reply to the overhaul one week after the repair to the next day to receive ~ ~ review is very fast ~ ~ the article is very thin, vote AC directly refused to change the vote ~ pointsSlightly low~

(2) Thank | G

is very fast.After the small change, I accepted it directly.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

11 The manuscript that was cast out in November, the review comments received on January 20th, considering the New Year and Christmas, the review time is roughly one month.When the comments came back, I sent three reviewers directly (although the three reviewers were all received after the minor repairs), and it didn’t feel like sending two of them, and there was a conflict of opinion before sending the third.The reviewers are very professional, very serious, and the comments are in place. There are more than a dozen typos and inappropriate use of English.I feel that there is a high demand for innovation and there is a certain theoretical discussion, but unlike the JPPC, the theory is particularly high.I am doing spectral analysis. It is a pity that the Chinese Academy of Sciences is divided into three districts. J Raman is in the second district and is sad.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

11Submission of drafts, reviewing more than 40 days, overhaul, serious revision, return to the editor to receive immediately, huh, huh.High efficiency, pay attention to theoretical analysis

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The draft submitted in October this year, I feel that it is innovative, there is no news after the vote, 47 days later received the editor's letter, overhaul.Accepted 7 days after the change.Analyst is a bit biased towards basic research, and pure applications are more difficult to develop.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

I was cast here after the CC was destroyed. The review was wasted for nearly two months, and I almost wrote a reminder letter. The returned opinion was Xiao Xiu, and the reviewer’s number was answered that day.The problem was received the next day, and then it was less than one week. The speed of the publication was ok, and the review was too slow.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

first voted for this journal,After minor repairs, minor repairs, then received.I feel that this journal is more innovative and systematic, and it feels quite difficult. Although it is finally accepted, this process is also tormented.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The first time I voted for the past 16 days, I returned to the revised re-investment, revised the re-investment for five days, and returned to the original reviewer. I accepted it for 20 days and asked for it.Certain innovation, work system, principle should be clear

(0) Thank | Anonymous

201112 voted for one, 20 days later, the review comments came back, a minor repair, a revised re-investment, the editor requested re-repair,After 20 days of revision and re-investment, 50 days later returned to the overhaul opinion, submitted changes after three weeks, and accepted directly after four days.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

At that time, he voted for CC and was denied by the editor. It was recommended to Analyst~ to face the situation of IF 4, but hesitated.After agreeing to the transfer, there was news of revision in about one month.The reviewer's comments are very biased towards analysis and are changed to the full text as required.Received.As an established magazine in 1876, the influence in the field of analysis and environment is still quite high.Its Cited Half-life is 8.8, which is much higher than CC's 5.9~

(0) Thank | Anonymous

very quickly, 27 days to give a minor repair, minor repair directly after returning.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Feeling is a very good old-fashioned journal of analytical chemistry. The review speed is very fast. It will be revised in one month or so, and then it will be accepted directly. The publishing speed is also very fast, about 2 months before and after.Very efficient, but requires innovation, emphasis on methods, feel

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Journal Homepage URL: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/journals/journalissues/an##id-Sp##864

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Review is fast.I voted, 40 days to reply, was rejected!Emphasis on originality is not enough!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The draft submitted in January this year, I feel a bit innovative, there is no news after the vote, I received the editor's letter about 2 months later, minor repair.Accepted about 10 days after the change.Analyst is a bit biased towards basic research. Pure applications are more difficult to develop, so they have withdrawn from their sister journals, Analytical Methods.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Review is very strict!Have a fight with ACS!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

is not bad, the first investment is in the middle. Of course, the work is also good, the content is relatively new, and the system is completed in depth and systematically. 20 days have news, then it is modified, revised to vote,Accepted less than a week. The format is more stringent.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the requirements are more strict

(0) Thank | Anonymous

personal feeling requires that the data is very detailed and the review will be very strict

(0) Thank | Anonymous