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

The article was submitted on April 10th, and two days later the EI status changed to Submitted to Journal, which has continued until now, almost half a month. I wonder if the article, including figures, should not exceed 6000 words, does that include references? Mine definitely exceeds that limit, and I have been urged to say that it is in the hands of the editor. Considering this situation, it is likely that it will be rejected and require resubmission. Sigh, what a waste of time.

(0) Thank | 玻璃是透明的

Oh my, they said it can't exceed 6000 there.

(0) Thank | 一路硕博，建设中国

Has the situation changed? It's been over ten days for me.

(0) Thank | thisone

After submission, it has always been STJ. There was no news after 1 month, so I followed up. The person from Elsevier replied, saying that the editor has been evaluating the paper. A week later, they provided a technical check and said that the research paper cannot exceed 6000 words, including charts and tables. They asked for a resubmission after modifications. I thought that after passing the editor's evaluation, I could submit it after modifications. I quickly made revisions to reduce the word count. After resubmission, I received a rejection email 3 days later, stating that the content was not within the scope of the journal. The journal's editorial evaluation process is slow, with a long cycle, and a narrow focus mainly on gas sensing. They do not recommend submitting to this journal and have blacklisted me. Of course, if it is related to chemical sensing and there are no other options, it is a different story.

(0) Thank | redcom

请提供需要翻译的内容。

(0) Thank | 你uncle的

What's wrong with this journal recently? It has been under review for 20 days and is still in the status of "Under Review".

(0) Thank | 别做焦虑大王

So slow, if I had known earlier, I wouldn't have tried to backdoor the tower.

(0) Thank | redcom

Not submitted for approval, right?

(0) Thank | redcom

How is the review speed? Please update it, my friend.

(0) Thank | redcom

Have you updated your status?

(0) Thank | 二十四星宿

STJ was filed after EI, and then STJ again, it has been over half a month.

(0) Thank | 你uncle的

It has been 6 days since submission to the journal. Is everyone this slow?

(0) Thank | redcom

Two reviewers.

(0) Thank | Sy Wang

Hello, how many reviewers do you have?

(0) Thank | Sonya1996

2025.3.18 First revision returned
2025.3.20 Second review invited an reviewer
2025.3.26 Review completed
2025.3.27 accept
From submission on 1.28 until now, it has been almost two months. Both the editor and the reviewers have been very efficient, and the quality of the article has been greatly improved after the revisions. Thanks to editor Peter A. Lieberzeit, and I hope SNB will continue to improve and break through an Impact Factor of 10!

(1) Thank | PPY多

Returning customer, the speed is really fast, and the editors and reviewers are also very professional, a perfect submission.
01.19 - STJ
01.22 - EI
01.24 - STJ
02.07 - WE
02.09 - UR
02.22 - RRC
02.23 - Major Revision
==================
03.15 - WE
03.18 - UR
03.21- RRC
03.22 - Minor Revision
==================
03.22 - WE
03.24 - UR
03.25 - Accept

(1) Thank | Sy Wang

2025.3.8 submit to journal
2025.3.12 with editor
2025.3.13 submit to journal
2025.3.18 with editor
2025.3.23 under review
Please, please, reviewers, from submitting to ACS all the way to being rejected by Elsevier, I am starting to doubt the work I have done.

(0) Thank | kwok angel

Based on the reviewed status, Major Revision is considered a significant revision.

(0) Thank | PPY多

3.18 拒绝

(0) Thank | 奔赴

May I ask where to check whether each reviewer has provided major revisions or minor revisions?

(0) Thank | 好的好的呢

Excuse me, where can I see if each reviewer has provided major revisions or minor revisions?

(0) Thank | 好的好的呢