The manuscript was submitted in October last year, and it was accepted in August this year, and now it was still online. I advise everyone that you should be careful to submit, be careful!

(1) Thank | AiLingling

Jun 24, 2020, Submitted; Jun 27, 2020, Under Review; July 19, 2020, Revised; Aug 4, 2020, Accepted; Aug 18, 2020, Online. Our manuscript was rejected by other journals twice. After careful revision, the reviewers only asked a few small questions. The process was quite fast. I hope that the journal will get better and better.

(1) Thank | particle-laden

Maybe I was lucky, the assistant editor-in-chief processed it very fast, and the review is very smooth. It took about three months in total. I wish the journal better and better!

(0) Thank | 东大大鱼人

This publication is mainly focused on fluid particles, and it is also attracting attention in expanding various types of particle preparation. I think this journal is very good, the efficiency is very high, and the rising IF is very good.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Please translate the following paragraph into English: RV12.23-01.09.

(0) Thank | Shanglw

we11/23-11/29

ur11/29-12/18

(0) Thank | Shanglw

How soon can you see the review status?

(0) Thank | Shanglw

How long has the external audit been conducted?

(0) Thank | Shanglw

Receiving after resubmission of modifications.

(0) Thank | AlexanderM

Isn't that worth appealing? This is just too outrageous.

(0) Thank | 阿其米米

Both reviewers gave positive feedback and provided suggestions for revisions, but the editor decided to reject the submission outright.

(0) Thank | AlexanderM

How long have you been audited?

(0) Thank | Feng

Is there no email notification when this journal is under review?

(0) Thank | 十二点前去睡觉

The editing process is very fast and the review speed is also very fast. It only took one month from submission to acceptance. Support domestic journals, the more the better

(1) Thank | 刘蒜苗

Predatory journals. Submitted for two months only to be rejected. One reviewer suggested revisions, but the editor claimed lack of novelty as reason for rejection. If there was no novelty, why did you send it for review? After two months of review and receiving feedback from one reviewer, why reject it? This is the first time encountering such a journal

(4) Thank | 师傅

Domestic journals, must be supported!

(1) Thank | 搬石头的海

Received 5 December 2022
Received in revised form
26 January 2023
Accepted 8 February 2023
Available online 28 February 2023
Two months, four reviewers have accepted.

(2) Thank | szx996

221202投 - Submit
221203外审 - External review
221219审回 - Review returned
230108修回 - Revised
230210审回 - Review returned
230216修回 - Revised
230216录用 - Accepted for publication

This journal has a high efficiency, especially for the second round of revisions. We submitted at noon and it was accepted in the afternoon. The two reviewers were meticulous and their feedback greatly helped improve the quality of the paper.

(1) Thank | 永强儿o

Has anyone recently invested? Is the recent speed fast? I see in the comments that everyone is saying it's slow, so I want to avoid any risks.

(1) Thank | 科研小杨424

Article history:
Received 3 January 2020
Received in revised form 22 March 2022
Accepted 5 April 2022
The review process was very fast, and the editor handled it quickly. The first SCI article went smoothly. The comments from both reviewers were very helpful.

(1) Thank | YYlll666

May 18, 2021, submitted
Jun 28, 2021, revised
Jul 23, 2021, accepted

The manuscript review process went smoothly, and the comments provided were very insightful, clearly indicating that the reviewer was knowledgeable in the field. I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewing experts and the editing teachers, and I wish the journal continued success.

(2) Thank | 枫继续吹

By the way, after the second review, two out of the three reviewers have agreed to publish. The one who disagrees is still there nitpicking, giving the impression as if they hold a grudge. The issues they raised are indeed valid, but such problems do not exist in our article; they just want to find fault.

(0) Thank | 哈少

Three reviewers reviewed it for five months, and then a fourth reviewer was added. In the end, the editor rejected it! It's really heart-wrenching. The work we did was about granular phase field coupling, which is already quite difficult. We not only had innovation but also substantial content. We provided detailed responses to more than twenty comments. Among them, one reviewer who disagreed always nitpicked and insisted on us verifying things that cannot be verified. It took five months, and the editor said he had to reject it. The first review alone took three months, and the process was already slow. I suggest everyone to consider it carefully!

(3) Thank | 哈少

Waited for a year to give review comments, and the repair was rejected, very pitted.

(1) Thank | carbon

selectd on February 27 this year, under review on March 7;On September 28th, the returning opinion came back, and a minor repair was overhauled; on October 9th, the return draft was submitted and received three days later.The first SCI, the final acceptance is not bad,, is that the first trial time is a bit long

(2) Thank | 1553234235@qq.com