I submitted the manuscript on February 4, and it was sent for review within one day. On March 5 reviewer comments were given, major revision, two reviewers, very pertinent comments. Fluorescent probe direction. I had an idea at the end of December, I made a compound in January, which was very simple. Finished writing, it was in time for the holiday, the article was submitted in a hurry, and there were many issues that were not paid attention to. Thank the reviewers for their detailed comments, which improved the article a lot. This is the smoothest submission so far. Thank you. On March 15 revised submission; on April 6 acceptance.

(7) Thank | 锋线杀手

I submitted the manuscript in June 2019. There was a reply in December 2019. Two reviewers. One reviewer recommended minor revisions, just a few format corrections; one reviewer rejected it without giving any reason. The date changed three times in the intermediate review status, and it had been under review for 5 months, and it was to wait for the editor's evaluation result at the end stage. I studied vegetation spectroscopy, and the editor gave me the opinion that the journal audience might not be interested in it and rejected the manuscript. In short, it was mainly up to the editor himself and the comments of the reviewer may only be the editor's reference. It is recommended that everyone should be careful when submitting articles.

(1) Thank | chh

It was submitted on January 10th, and the status has always been “submitted to journal”. It took more than ten days to become “with editor” and it was sent for review within a few days, starting from February 9th. I received the replies on March 10th. Two reviewers, one had no comments, and the other required a minor revision. This was my first submission, and I was very grateful for them. The editing efficiency is quite high. It was sent for review after my revised submission, and then accepted in another one day. Good wishes!

(6) Thank | 张小雨

This journal is published by Elsevier. You have to go through their technical screening first before they review your manuscript. Some other journals would review the manuscript content first. One thing that is good is you can see the review status. You can track at what step of submission your manuscript is at from receipt to under review. Unlike RSC, they only say under review and send out a decision letter. The quality of the papers published in this journal is mixed. Some were not cited even once in a two-year period. However, within the field of spectrochemistry, this journal is still a solid one. At least it’s better than Luminescence.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

2025.5.15 submit
2025.5.16 UR
2025.5.25 First reviewer completed review
2025.5.27 Found second reviewer, who never completed the review. The system showed that the second reviewer accepted to review after completion of the first review, wasting two months of time.
2025.8.6 reject
The first reviewer suggested major revisions, but the editor rejected them.

(0) Thank | wlwang

I accidentally selected open access when submitting the changes, can I still modify it later? The interface shows that if accepted, it can be changed later, but someone told me that once accepted, it goes straight to proofing.

(0) Thank | frt0326

When resubmitting after modification, if accidentally selecting open access, can it still be modified later? I see on the interface that the option can be changed if accepted.

(0) Thank | frt0326

Excuse me, how did the dip turn out?

(0) Thank | hqwu

The article was revised on June 30th, returned for further revisions on July 2nd, underwent final revisions on July 5th, returned for minor revisions on July 15th, and finalized on July 17th. It was accepted on July 19th, proofread on July 21st, and published on July 24th. The processing speed was very fast, providing a very good submission experience.

(0) Thank | 凯子哥

6.25 shows the review is complete, hoping for good luck.

(0) Thank | 凯子哥

After two rounds of revision, I would like to ask everyone if the "dip" status of this journal is a mandatory stage. Thank you all and I wish you all can accept.

(0) Thank | 五星红旗迎风飘扬耶

After two rounds of revisions, the manuscript is now in the "dip" state. I would like to ask everyone if this "dip" state after revisions is a necessary stage for this journal??? Thank you all and I wish everyone can accept it!

(0) Thank | 五星红旗迎风飘扬耶

The manuscript was submitted on June 10th and was sent to two reviewers. We hope that the review process can be expedited as we are in a hurry.

(0) Thank | 凯子哥

Submission on June 1st, with editor on June 4th, still with editor now, feeling anxious.

(0) Thank | 凯子哥

This journal is quite good, with a relatively fast review and publication speed. There is a certain level of innovation required for the quality of the articles, but it is not very high. However, a systematic approach is needed, and the characterization requirements for compounds are not as strict as those for dyes and pigments. The reviewers are quite responsible and provide useful suggestions. The journal is stable in JCR Q1 and Chinese Academy of Sciences Q2. This is already the third article submitted to SAA, and each one has been revised and resubmitted after being rejected by other journals. The submission process usually involves minor revisions, and all articles have been accepted in the end.

Submission process
Received 29 March 2025;
Received in revised form 24 April 2025;
Accepted 28 April 2025
Available online 1 May 2025.

(0) Thank | Yuer0108

Is dip waiting to be rejected?

(0) Thank | ...111...

The process didn't feel too slow, maybe I was lucky. Submitted on 2.07, received feedback on 3.12, with one major and one minor revision. Fixed and returned on 3.19, and accepted on 3.21.

(0) Thank | UDALOI

Stop talking nonsense about the new issue being released, 2nd district is still better. Don't get people excited for no reason.

(0) Thank | Tony1001

Is it Class II, Division I?

(0) Thank | ngwhl

The latest partition has been changed to the 1st district of the Chinese Academy of Sciences!

(0) Thank | yerengege

The review speed is a bit slow. I don't know if the journal will remain in the second tier this year. I hope someone knowledgeable can provide an answer.

(0) Thank | ngwhl

1.2 with managing editor
1.6 with editor
1.6 under review
1.20 reviews completed 2
1.24 reviews completed 2+
1.24 dip
1.27 revision (three reviewers, one direct publication, one major revision (a lot of issues that are clearly not in my field from the reviewer, the third minor revision with two issues)
2.12 article revised
2.12 with editor
2.12 accept (accepted directly by editor without review)
Editor: Judy Kim
The process is quite fast, previously submitted to SNB was rejected after external review, submitted to CCL after revision was rejected without review, personally submitted third article to SAA.

(0) Thank | 投搞一直被拒

The major revisions suggested by two reviewers were rejected by the editor and the manuscript was not allowed to be resubmitted elsewhere.

(0) Thank | 小松接好运

It has already cooled down.

(0) Thank | 小熊1515

Received 12 December 2024; Received in revised form 21 January 2025; Accepted 2 February 2025
Available online 4 February 2025

(0) Thank | 应山