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

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

Received at Editorial Office: 10 Aug 2024
Article revised: 28 Nov 2024
Article accepted for publication: 23 Dec 2024
The overall speed was fast, and reviewers were quickly found after the initial submission.

(0) Thank | ffffffffa

The editors value innovation and experimental data very highly. They have strict requirements for English proficiency, and they expect in-depth analysis of both theory and experiments in long articles. The manuscript review process is very professional, with reviewers posing very professional questions to ensure the rigor of the paper. They hope that everyone can be accepted for publication. Let's progress together and discuss improvements.

7.10 submitted to the journal 7.11 with editor
7.21 under review 5-6-1
7.23 under review 7-2-9
7.26 under review 0-7-6
Group
8.4 under review 5-6-1
8.8 under review 7-2-9
8.9 required reviews complete 0-7-6
9.10 resubmit group
9.13 under review 5-6-1
9.15 under review 7-2-9
9.16 under review 0-7-6
9.29 accept

(0) Thank | kekeshijie

2024-06-16 submit
2024-06-28 under review
2024-07-14 rrc
Submitted to four reviewers, received feedback from three, one reviewer had no comments, suggesting a possibility of acceptance.
The feedback from the three reviewers was positive, with some constructive suggestions for improvement, and a 21-day revision period was given.
During a family member's illness, I worked overtime in the hospital to complete the revisions and submitted on the 20th day.
2024-08-17 Under review
2024-08-20 rrc
The review process was very fast, both reviewers accepted the paper, with one reviewer pointing out some formatting issues.
Quickly made the necessary revisions and resubmitted.
2024-08-29 under review
2024-09-13 accepted
The editorial process was very prompt, the feedback from the reviewers was professional and constructive, leading to improvements in the paper.
Overall, it was a good journal.

(0) Thank | axlville

The fourth reviewer accepted the review and ran away, so the editor waited for more than 40 days before inviting a new reviewer, also out of respect for the reviewers. Most of the time, the editor's handling is very fast, with the main delay being the reviewers. After observation, the time given to reviewers and authors should be 21 days, and the number of reviewers needed to make a decision should be 3.

Overall, the efficiency of the journal and editor is still very high, but the reviewers' speed is indeed uncontrollable. If you are lucky, the review will be completed in a day or two, but if you are unlucky, it will be like mine. I hope this information can help other teachers and students who are submitting articles, and wish everyone encounters fast reviewers and smoothly publishes their articles!

(0) Thank | Mikcyhyl

2024.8.15 resubmit
2024.8.20 under review (Round 3, invited 1 reviewer, 1 accepted review, 0 completed)
2024.9.7 review complete (Round 3, invited 1 reviewer, 1 accepted review, 1 completed)
2024.9.7 accept

(0) Thank | Mikcyhyl

2024.5.27 resubmit
2024.5.29 under review (Round 2, invited 3 reviewers, 2 accepted, 0 completed)
2024.5.30 under review (Round 2, invited 3 reviewers, 2 accepted, 1 completed)
2024.6.4 under review (Round 2, invited 3 reviewers, 2 accepted, 2 completed)
2024.6.8 under review (Round 2, invited 4 reviewers, 3 accepted, 2 completed)
2024.7.24 under review (Round 2, invited 5 reviewers, 4 accepted, 2 completed)
2024.8.14 review complete (Round 2, invited 5 reviewers, 4 accepted, 3 completed)
2024.8.14 request for revision (Minor revisions, 3 required, 21 days for revisions)

(0) Thank | Mikcyhyl

Specific process:
2024.3.22 submit
2024.4.3 under review
2024.4.11 under review (first round, 4 reviewers invited, 3 accepted, 0 completed)
2024.4.28 review complete (first round, 4 reviewers invited, 3 accepted, 1 completed)
2024.5.2 review complete (first round, 4 reviewers invited, 3 accepted, 2 completed)
2024.5.5 review complete (first round, 4 reviewers invited, 3 accepted, 3 completed)
2024.5.6 request for revision (1 positive, 1 neutral, 1 negative, but not many specific comments, given 21 days for revision)

(0) Thank | Mikcyhyl

2024.3.4 submit
2024.3.14 reject (Repeated rate not passed, requires less than 10%. It is recommended that everyone self-check with iThenticate before submitting)
2024.3.22 submit
2024.4.3 under review
2024.5.6 request for revision
2024.5.27 resubmit
2024.5.29 under review
2024.8.14 request for revision
2024.8.15 resubmit
2024.8.20 under review
2024.9.7 accept

(0) Thank | Mikcyhyl

No, one and a half months for the first review is still normal, two and a half months for the second review... it's been half a month for the third review... Although it's slow, I see that the main reason in the Track link is the slow reviewers, the processing speed of the editors is still very fast. I don't see others being that slow either...

(0) Thank | Mikcyhyl

It has been 1 month and 5 days since with editor, what is this journal doing? Does everyone go through this process? Do we need to push for submission?

(0) Thank | CC-Coach

I was delayed by an editor for a month and then had to change editors before finally getting it submitted for review. I guess it all comes down to luck.

(0) Thank | J05EPH

May 18, 2024 submit
May 19, 2024 with editor
May 27, 2024 with editor
June 9, 2024 under review (5) - followed by 1
June 11, 2024 under review (5 -> 7) - followed by 1
June 15, 2024 under review (7 -> 8) - followed by 1
June 19, 2024 under review (8 -> 9) - followed by 1
June 28, 2024 under review (9 -> 12) - followed by 1
July 1, 2024 under review

(0) Thank | Mr.Y