20200829 Submission. 20200903 With editor. 20200905 Editor-in-chief Yasuhiro Shimizu rejected it without sending it for review. But detailed revision requirements were given, and resubmission was clearly welcomed. 20200907 Re-submission according to the editor’s comments. 20200908 With editor. 20200917 Under review. Handled by associate editor Jong-Heun Lee. 20201016 Two reviewers, one required a minor revision and the other one required a major revision. The comments were very appropriate and professional. The deputy editor-in-chief requested a major revision (Two months were given, and some experiments should be supplemented). 20201113 Revision resubmitted; 20201115 Under review. 20201205 Returned to the reviewer who requested a major revision and it was directly accepted. The paper was the first high level paper and a new start, after the research group changed the research direction into flexible devices.

(13) Thank | pipigo

20200619 Submitted; 20200626 Under Review; 20200717 Under Editor Evaluation; 20200719 Major revision (two months were given, and experiment was required to be supplemented); 20200916 Revision submitted, and then it was with editor; 20200918 Under Review; 20201018 Minor revision (one month was given, and it needed polishing); 20201023-20201028 (Elsevier official website); 20201105 Revision submitted, and then it was with editor; 20201106 I was asked to cite some articles (one month was given); 20201106 it was submitted the same day (as it was a minor revision, the editor reviewed it himself); 20201108 Accepted. Special thanks to editor Professor Osamu Niwa! This is the first article of the PhD period. I’ll keep on trying my best!

(7) Thank | Favour

On April 22th Submission to Journal; on April 30th Under review; on May 18th Under editor evaluation; on May 20th Major revision. Two reviewers had 11 questions in total, and there was no need to make additional experiments; on June 8th Submission to Journal; on June 23th Required Reviews Completed; on June 27th Minor revision, a small issue; on June 29th Submission to Journal; on July 3st Accept; on July 7th Online. Many comments said that the review was too slow or required a relationship, so I was too scared to submit a manuscript to it. Unexpectedly, editor and reviewer processed surprisingly fast. Overall, I feel that this journal is very good. It does not have such high requirements for innovation, but it requires a more systematic, detailed, logical, and strict format. Specially, I would like to thank the associate editor Gustavo Rivas and the editor Dmitri Papkovsky for being able to take the new scientific researcher seriously, who had no relationship and no background.

(70) Thank | 王大锤

SCI journal. Submitted December 17, the first review cycle took more than four months. In mid-April, I received the first opinions, and gave the paper 2 months of overhaul. There were 4 reviewers. They wanted more experiments, but after the experiments didn’t go smoothly, I applied for two extensions, which were granted for 2 months and revised for a total of 4 months, until July 31.The second review was still quite slow and it took more than three months. On October 17, I submitted my revisions. Three reviewers agreed to accept, but there was still a disagreement and I was told that I did not give the data the other reviewer wanted. So I revised it again for a period of three weeks. It was a very serious overhaul and the hard-working editor and the reviewer both looked at it. so although the data given was not satisfactory, our impression was still very good and I was given the opportunity for minor repairs. On November 8, the minor repairs were made and on November 10, it was submitted for review. On  November 13th, it was accepted. Waiting for those months was torment, the review process lasted nearly a year until my paper was finally accepted! Your patience and efforts will definitely pay off.

(7) Thank | Ellie W

It seems that being tossed around by Japanese editors has become the norm when submitting articles. The most outrageous incident was at the end of last year when I submitted to SNB. The handling editor that time was not Dr. Shimizu, and the article smoothly went to review. The responsible editor and reviewers were very professional, raising over forty questions and requesting revisions. In response to these comments, I conducted additional original experiments and HAADF experiments, and the explanation alone took up several pages. However, the most frustrating part was that after resubmitting, the handling editor changed back to Dr. Shimizu, who directly rejected the manuscript on the grounds of "not being revised seriously," which was really disappointing. In the past, when Talanta was still in the first quartile, there was at least a goal to strive for, but now it has dropped to the second quartile, making it increasingly difficult to publish a first quartile article.

(0) Thank | msxmr

I initially submitted to JCIS, followed by Nano Research, then ACS Sensors, and finally SNB. It has been several months and none of the articles have been submitted for review. This year has been really tough.

(0) Thank | 超爱操人

Oh my god, I have been rejected three times, each time on the first day of submission, rejected on the second day, and then kept being rejected. The fourth time I submitted, it has been several days without any changes, it still shows "WE".

(0) Thank | 超爱操人

The small research team has already accepted 2 papers this year. The algorithm for gas sensor recognition can be questioned freely.

(0) Thank | zz1111

Dr. Qingshui has a lot of requirements, but if you answer them seriously, there is still a chance to submit for review.

(0) Thank | zz1111

My case is still in the second-instance trial, it's so slow.

(0) Thank | Ronbing Ye

So fast, I submitted it on May 5th, and it's still in the second review.

(0) Thank | Ronbing Ye

Submitted in March at the beginning of the year, the gas sensor manuscript was reviewed by editors very professionally. Following their suggestions, we conducted new experiments and resubmitted the manuscript. After receiving feedback from four reviewers, we responded to their questions in several pages. Finally, after a duration of over 5 months, the manuscript was accepted. This journal publishes sensor-related papers and is highly respected in the industry. Keep up the good work!

(0) Thank | Fan zhiqiang

He rejected me five times, it's okay, let's make some changes, he still works very quickly. In the end, he approved the final draft.

(0) Thank | 小庹

Hired after five rejections.

(0) Thank | 小庹

I have submitted to SNB several times, but whenever I encounter this Japanese editor, I always get rejected. One time, they said the horizontal and vertical axes of the EIS graph were not consistent, can the symbols for real and imaginary parts be the same? I reluctantly made the changes, only to be told that the word "sensitivity" should not appear in the article as it is not precise enough. After making another round of revisions, they continued to nitpick about the XRD parameters, even though it was not a detailed structural analysis and just a general scan to roughly determine the phase. After going back and forth four or five times, my submission was rejected.

(0) Thank | msxmr

Can you tell me if the editor sent it back to you to change the word count, or did you change it yourself? I also saw the requirement, but I noticed that the most recent issue accepted articles that exceeded 6000 words, so I'm a bit confused.

(0) Thank | 张丘

5.15 Sent to journal
5.18 Invited editor
5.21 Sent to journal
6.20 With editor
6.22 Under review
7.06 Minor revision
7.20 Revised with editor
7.21 Accepted

It took about a month to wait in line in the early stage, but the process sped up once it reached the editor.

(1) Thank | Analyst

The edited version without brothers is Yasuhiro Shimizu's, which was repeatedly modified and resubmitted after editing, this has happened three times.

(0) Thank | 大熊1996

July 17, 2025. Under review.

(1) Thank | Anthonychen

2025.6.24 STJ
2025.6.26 Editor invited
2025.7.1 STJ
2025.7.15 With editor

(0) Thank | Anthonychen

5.16 Initial Submit
6.4 Under Review
7.8 RRC
7.11 Reject 1 major revision, 1 rejection, editor gave rejection
The initial handling time of SNB is very slow, but the speed after submission is still very fast. However, I encountered a reviewer who completely denied my work, and the editor was not kind enough to give me a revision. I can only say it's fate.

(0) Thank | ILOVEROOT

7.10 Submission
7.10 Editor Invited
Hope to send for external review.

(0) Thank | 小松接好运

6.12ew
6.14 st
6.26 we
7.1 ur 8-3-0
7.9 8-3-1
Wish you good luck.

(0) Thank | 九三93

Is it ready for submission now?

(0) Thank | 岁月无恒

Please translate the following paragraph into English: "Modify the format, not yet ready for submission, the editor cannot understand the logic."

(0) Thank | 岁月无恒