2019 01.19, with editor; 2019.02.17, under review; 2019.03.18, under review; 2019.05.11, major revision; 2019.06.10, major revision was returned; 2019.08.06, it can be accepted after minor revision; 2019.08.10, minor revision was returned; 2019.08.20, minor revision. But there were no comments on minor revision. It made me speechless. I submitted the manuscript to another SCI journal (top in Q1), it was now accepted. This article hasn’t been included yet, I want to use it for the assessment of scholarship, but it cannot be used. Fortunately, another article was included in the SCI journal in August. What’s more, the process speed of the editor was extremely slow, and there were operational errors, such as no suggestions given to the last minor revision. I have submitted articles from my senior year to now, and I have also submitted 4 articles to SCI journals, I have never seen such a slow journal. It is true that the lower impact factor of the journal, the worse the quality and the lower the efficiency of it. If there are no other suitable journals, please do not submit to this journal, especially students who are doing research on devices. I didn't want to comment again, but I really can't bear it.

(62) Thank | ZJUCheny

I really don't know what to say. There is nothing to do with bad-heart reviewers. It was submitted in early January this year and after a long wait until early April. The two reviewers, one of them asked a few questions and there was basically no problem, which was very positive and affirmative. The other one asked 20 questions, most of which can actually be found in the article. Obviously, the reviewer asked questions without reading it carefully. Then I was asked to explain it in details, I can only add it. It was submitted in mid-April. Then reviewer comments came back about half a month later. Still that boring reviewer said that the overall answer was good, but there were four more questions that need to be explained clearly. If he had read the article carefully, he would not need to ask those boring questions. I was freaking out. For example, he asked me to further explain the model verification part. As a result, a model verification part occupied two pages of the article. The total word count of the article was more than 10,000. Then it was resubmitted in early May. Then it’s been a month until now, and it’s still under review. Though there is no news yet, I guess this reviewer would reject the article as there is clearly only 4 further explanations which only take a few minutes to decide whether to satisfy him or not. However, it was delayed over a month. Obviously he was going to reject the manuscript and deliberately wasting my time. And after being tossed by this guy, manuscript submitted to other journals may require me to revise the format... In short, it is being deceived by all kinds of things. Students who are anxious to graduate must be careful. If you are not anxious, good luck with you. If you meet this kind of reviewer, you will only be fooled... If you are not ready to accept this manuscript, it is better to reject it at the beginning. Better a finger off than aye wagging. Why should you delay it for half a year?

(5) Thank | 李同学

I really don't know what to say. There is nothing to do with bad-heart reviewers. It was submitted in early January this year and after a long wait until early April. The two reviewers, one of them asked a few questions and there was basically no problem, which was very positive and affirmative. The other one asked 20 questions, most of which can actually be found in the article. Obviously, the reviewer asked questions without reading it carefully. Then I was asked to explain it in details, I can only add it. It was submitted in mid-April. Then reviewer comments came back about half a month later. Still that boring reviewer said that the overall answer was good, but there were four more questions that need to be explained clearly. If he had read the article carefully, he would not need to ask those boring questions. I was freaking out. For example, he asked me to further explain the model verification part. As a result, a model verification part occupied two pages of the article. The total word count of the article was more than 10,000. Then it was resubmitted in early May. Then it’s been a month until now, and it’s still under review. Though there is no news yet, I guess this reviewer would reject the article as there is clearly only 4 further explanations which only take a few minutes to decide whether to satisfy him or not. However, it was delayed over a month. Obviously he was going to reject the manuscript and deliberately wasting my time. And after being tossed by this guy, manuscript submitted to other journals may require me to revise the format... In short, it is being deceived by all kinds of things. Students who are anxious to graduate must be careful. If you are not anxious, good luck with you. If you meet this kind of reviewer, you will only be fooled...

(0) Thank | 李同学

Article was completed in 2014 with an explicit function model describing the relationship between solar cell output current-voltage (no explicit function model before). Review comments given within two months. Two reviewers gave a total of 28 comments and requested completion of the revision within two months. It took one month to complete the revision. This modification was equivalent to two-thirds of the re-finished paper. The revised manuscript was submitted at the specified time, and was accepted two weeks after submission. The editorial department is very good, and the reviewers are also good (although their comments sometimes made it difficult for me to make modifications.

(1) Thank | liucs4976@sohu.com

There are only 2 reviewers, so it will take us about two weeks to submit the review.

(0) Thank | axlville

How many reviewers were sent for rework, and how long will it be under review?

(0) Thank | peter2333

Two days delivery, super fast.

(0) Thank | accept SCI

2025-04-29 submitted
2025-05-18 under review
2025-06-12 review complete
2025-06-27 Article revised
2025-07-12 Article accepted for publication
In less than 3 months, the editorial process was very fast, and the reviewers were also quite friendly. It's a pity that when it was submitted, it was still a top journal, but this year it has become non-top. Hopefully, the journal will continue to improve and return to being a top journal soon.

(0) Thank | axlville

When submitting the manuscript, should it be in PDF format or in TEX format?

(0) Thank | youerdam

Just want to ask if anyone has received a "Revise" status after the external review, with two reviewers.

(0) Thank | peter2333

This situation is probably due to not finding the reviewer. I have encountered similar situations when submitting to ECM before. It can only be said that submitting papers still depends on luck.

(0) Thank | axlville

I want to know how long it takes for the results to come out after your external audit, and if you were rejected during the DIP period. It's been almost 3 weeks since my first audit, and I still haven't received any results. I'm worried.

(0) Thank | yichen yuan

Trash journal, doesn't even reply to emails.

(0) Thank | 稻花香

Submitted in May, under review within two weeks.
After review, the article was not rejected by the editor without any review comments, but the feedback given was that it did not meet the scope of the journal.
A waste of time.
Have submitted to many other journals before, but this is the first time encountering such a disgusting experience.
A trashy journal, be cautious when submitting.

(1) Thank | 稻花香

Received at Editorial Office: 7 Mar 2025 
Article revised: 13 May 2025 
Article accepted for publication: 1 Jun 2025

A very pleasant submission, from submission to acceptance in less than three months, thanks to the editor-in-chief and three reviewers!

(0) Thank | wang

How are you doing right now?

(0) Thank | axlville

Hello, is it rejected by the editor, or is it under review?

(0) Thank | 小猪椰蓉

It is indeed very slow, mine has been a week as well, and it has always been "we".

(0) Thank | peter2333

4.8 until now with editor

(0) Thank | Katya

3 out of 5 were rejected by the table, what a waste of time!

(0) Thank | Echizen

2.17 submitted for review with editor
3.4 with editor (changed the date)
Seems a bit slow, doesn't it?

(0) Thank | Abc789

3.26 The second reviewer UR

(0) Thank | Z

Please revise the 21-day modification period on March 8th.

(0) Thank | Z

Receive good luck, receive, receive, accept, please, please, please.

(0) Thank | Z

Submission on January 24, the first review ended on January 30, and the second review ended on March 3.

(1) Thank | Z