VACUUM

Mar. 08 submitted; Apr. 16 major revision; May. 16 submitted; May 23 minor revision; May. 27 submitted; May. 27 accept. The editor-in-chief Prof. LG Hultman processed the manuscript very quickly. Comments were given in about one month. The reviewer gave a lot of professional comments, he reviewed the manuscript very meticulously, and compared my work with his article published in the top journal MMTB, requiring it to be comprehensive. But the problem is not difficult to solve. At the same time, the editor also asked three questions. It should have been accepted at the first review. But the editor insisted on a response to the question that he raised, and we then had to honestly added more than two thousand words of reply to satisfy him!

(2) Thank | songguo

May 05, 2020, Submitted; May 05, 2020, With editor; May 10, Major Revision; May 11, Submitted; May 11, Under Review; May 12, Under Review; May 14, Under Review; May 24, Revise; May 26, Submitted; May 27, Accept. This is a short communication on the mechanical properties of magnesium alloys. Thanks to Professor Paul Mayrhofer for his high efficiency!

(7) Thank | cchong

It was submitted on January 19, 2020, but was rejected the next day. Resubmission was requested after adding simulation verification. 2020.01.20 resubmission, on the same day with editor, under review; 2020.02.22 major revision; 2020.03.09 submission after major revision; 2020.04.08 major revision; 2020.04.09 submitted after revision; 2020.04.10 accept. The processing speed of the editor was really fast. It is within two days from “Submitted to journal” to “with editor”.

(3) Thank | sdprince

I submitted on May 26, 2015, and received the review comments one month later, on June 28. One reviewer, gave a total of 14 comments. I submitted the revised version on July 26 (Saturday) at 11:00 am, and received the email accepting the paper at 9:00 that evening. This is my experience, my first paper! The whole process took two months, so fast! The Editor-in-Chief, Prof. L.G. Hultman is very conscientious, very good! Every email from them was very kind, I really appreciated it. Good luck to everyone!

(6) Thank | HAHAHA

Speed ​​is really fast, come back for two weeks.The three reviewers and editors had a total of 42 questions, and the response was longer than the article.A message such as repair has been submitted.

(0) Thank | shawangrenjian

Editor-in-Chief Lars hultman is particularly efficient.2018.7.04with journal;2018.7.05 under review;2018.7.31 major revision;2018.9.04 summarize revision ;2018.10.09 accept;2018.10.10 online.The whole process was three months, and the editing process was extremely fast. The two reviewers gave 16 comments, the manuscript was 12 pages, and the reply manuscript made 11 pages. I felt that I had rewritten a paper, but the result is still good, thanks.Editor-in-Chief Lars Hultman.

(2) Thank | 纪云

The old journal, the editor is very responsible, hultman is very nice, the reviewer's suggestion is very pertinent.

(2) Thank | 笑对人生

Professor Lars is very nice, and his comments are also very professional.Processing speed is super fast, online on the third day after receiving, and published on the seventh day

(12) Thank | 北冥有扶摇

Dr. Hultman is very nice to handle manuscripts at a fast speed, 3.20 submissions, 4.18 for minor repairs, 5.10 re-submitments, because an expert is not satisfied with the changes, here is a minor repair, 6.5 rework, 6.20 has been received

(1) Thank | pin

There are a lot of journals below...XX was rejected, and then transferred to journal of materials science directly accepted, I really can't stand it.

(4) Thank | 11

has been rejected, transferred to the Journal of material sciece successfully acceptd!

(0) Thank | 吼吼

1.6Submission, 2,16 revision comments, not many, requires some data and instructions, fortunately, this part of the data was taken into account during the experiment, allNo need to make up the experiment, lucky, fortunately, modified according to the requirements, one comment has not been changed, given the instructions for not changing, 2.26 returned to the revised draft, 3.22 receivingThe short communication editor is Paul Mayrhofer

(1) Thank | dengduoduo

17-9-9 sub17-10-12 major revision17-10-26 resub17-11-14 ready for decision17-11-14 acceptThanks to Lars Hultman, Prof. for their high productivity and serious attitude!

(0) Thank | Michaux

Feeling speed is very fast, 10.18 submission10.19 with editor10.19 under review10.26 revision10.26 returned on the same day, the editor believes that the revision is not serious, so that the revision is submitted again.11.1 Modifying Submissions11.2 AcceptThanks to Professor Lars Hultman for handling it very quickly.

(0) Thank | Corban

4.1, and three weeks later (4.22) return the opinions of four reviewers, one rejects the draft, and the other threeCan be accepted after modification.5.10 Rework 1, 6.2 The editorial department returned the revised opinion, 6.15 returned, 6.18 the editorial department returned the modification, and the 6.23 number returned, and accepted on the same day.It has been shared for a little more than two months.

(0) Thank | zlni@tju.edu.cn

is the content of the numerical simulation. After the submission was accepted, it was rejected three days later because there was no experiment.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

4.2Submission, 4.30 overhaul: I feel that this journal is still quite responsible. The editor read the review comments. I originally wanted to reject the manuscript. I feel that I have published related articles in other journals.The content article gave the opportunity to overhaul; the No. 5.30 was returned, and each question was answered very seriously; on the 6.4th, the editorial email was received, and several grammar and word errors were needed, and the day was repaired; the paper No. 6.11 was received;LG Hultman, processing speed is really fast!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

feels that this journal is significantly weaker than JVSTA. Although the impact factor is similar, it is just one in 1.3, and the review comments are submitted in one month for a total of two months.It was published in three and a half months.Very fast, huh, huh.Another select for JVSTA was rejected and it is planned to switch to Vacuum.Professional: Vacuum technology

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Reviewing is very fast, the editor is also very responsible, a good journal, like a 2012.12.2 submission 2012.1.12 return to the revised comments 2012.1.15 modified and submitted out 2012.1The .24 notice is the fastest one I have acceptd in recent years.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

November 14, 2012, the manuscript received a revised opinion on January 1, 2013. Two experts said that the work is nice and impressive. January 7, 2013, revised back to January 9, 2013Day reception

(0) Thank | Anonymous

selectd in December last year, immediately four months have been changed in the middle of the under review three times under review time now the journal changed the editor and editor do not know if it is affected by thisThe effect of feeling is much slower than the last time, painful waiting in the

(0) Thank | Anonymous

just submitted an article.3 months to modify the comments!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Today's article was accepted, edited by RE Hurley, people are very good in April submission, revised today, accepted, half a year or so time

(0) Thank | Anonymous

just acceptd an articleIt took about half a year to edit RE Hurley. Finally, I helped me to modify the grammar. Thanks to

(0) Thank | Anonymous

I just received the editor's email today. The article has been accepted for publication.Changed twice to add some data, and then directly acceptd, the speed is OK!

(0) Thank | Anonymous