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

Well, it seems like everyone is like this. This slow speed, I have to watch it eight hundred times a day.

(0) Thank | MINAN

5.18 stj 5.19 ei 5.20 stj 6.17 or stj 
It seems that the processing speed of this journal is really slow recently.

(0) Thank | zzj

I didn't become STJ on May 20th again, still STJ on June 17th.

(0) Thank | Analyst

Record
5.19 STJ
5.20 WE
5.22 STJ
No change in status as of 6.15
Is this really normal, it's too slow.

(0) Thank | MINAN

6.13 Rejected
Biological AI applications should be invested cautiously, focusing not on your AI innovation, but on biological innovation.

(0) Thank | zzyymm

Correction: 6.12 WE

(0) Thank | zzyymm

Record as follows:
6.08 STJ
6.08 WE
6.12 STJ
6.08 WE

(0) Thank | zzyymm

After submitting on 5.18, on 5.19 it was EI, and on 5.20 it showed "Submitted to Journal". It's been half a month with no progress, so slow.

(0) Thank | zzj

We reject, the speed is really fast after WE.

(0) Thank | 什么年游

How are you doing now? It has been 19 days since I last saw you.

(0) Thank | 树1

Submission Experience:
5.2 Submitted to Journal
5.3 Editor Invited
5.6 Submitted to Journal
Status unchanged as of 5.27

(0) Thank | 什么年游

This journal has been very slow recently. It's been 10 days and the STJ still hasn't been delivered to the editor.

(0) Thank | ILOVEROOT

My STJ has been unresponsive for 20 days.

(1) Thank | 什么年游

What happened later? I also did, after we became stj, now it has been five days and there is no reaction.

(0) Thank | Ann

Did you invite the editor when you submitted your manuscript? I didn't see that option when I submitted mine.

(0) Thank | 如幻。

Did you invite the editor when you submitted your article? When I submitted mine, I didn't see that option in the system.

(0) Thank | 如幻。

I have been submitting to two journals after coming out early, and I have been preparing to submit to a second-tier journal for more than half a year. The review process is very fast, usually not exceeding one month in total. The last one gave a minor revision and the other one rejected it. The editor did not show any mercy and rejected it, which is a pity. My senior sister submitted to the same journal on electrochemistry at the same time, and she has already been asked for revisions after the second review. I also submitted to FRI later, and the editor was very interested but the scope did not match. It has been 20 days since I submitted to FoodControl and it is still under review, but now I think SensorB might be faster.

(0) Thank | kwok angel

5.09 under review.

(0) Thank | 18年的勒布朗

No, it's just changing and changing back, I didn't do anything.

(0) Thank | 18年的勒布朗

My paper has also been sent back for revisions. It has been with the editor for two days and is still submitted to the journal. There have been no changes yet.

(0) Thank | 清欢1218

Seeing how anxious you are about your experience, I also repeatedly went back to submit to the journal. However, it has only been a week since then.

(0) Thank | 色散转折点