APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL

2019.10.18 Submitted to journal; 2019.10.20 Under review; 2019.12.6 Major revision; 2019.12.31 Revision Submitted to Journal; 2020.1.2 With editor; 2020.1.7 Under Review; 2020.1.22 Minor revision; 2020.1.4 Revision Submitted to Journal; 2020.1.5 With editor; 2020.1.6 Accept. Two reviewers were invited. It underwent major revision and minor revision, which took about 3 months. I feel that journals pay more attention to innovation, the opinions of reviewers are quite professional, and the editing efficiency is also high. This is my first paper of Q in my life. My heart beat faster when it was accepted. This may be the joy of "victory".

(10) Thank | rsndfd

08/21/19 submitted to journal; 08/23 under review; 09/04 under editor evaluation 09/9 under review; 09/16 major revision. (Three reviewers, one of them should have rejected the review, so the intermediate status has changed once.) 10/08 required revision completed; 10/09 under review; 10/14 minor revision (modified a word); 10/15 required revision completed; 10/16 under editor; 10/16 accept. (Accepted in less than two hours in the hands of the editor.)

(3) Thank | yinger

I submitted in March and received four critical reviews after a few rounds of editing and back and forth with the editor. Overall, the editor was responsive and communicative, even though the reviewers were picky… I was told that most of the reviewers the editor asked for reviews refused. Despite the revisions and issues on the editorial side, my manuscript was accepted post-revisions at the end of April. So, very brief review period in general (about 2 months). The editors and reviewers for this journal were constructive, timely and helpful.

(4) Thank | lucy

11.11 Submission, 11.24 for review, 12.13 editorial evaluation, 12.15 editorial evaluation, 12.18 editing for overhaul.A total of four reviewers, two appropriate modifications to receive, one overhaul raised a lot of questions, the other said that marriage is very interesting but not acceptable at the current stage, raised a few questions.1.15 Reworked back, 1.16with editor, an hour later to repair a word spelling.It should not be submitted for review again, and it will be returned to the next day.Then 1.19 received

(1) Thank | zyaikeyan

11.11 select; number 12 with editor.Why is this state still very up to now?One of the half years ago was from submission to reception for the entire month.This time is too slow

(3) Thank | zyaikeyan

3.14 submitted;4.12 The review comments are returned, overhauled, and two reviewers;5.25 throwing again;7.15 The review comments came back. Because one of the previous reviewers lost contact, they again found a reviewer for review, overhaul, and another agreed to receive;8.13 submitted again;8.17 The review comments are returned, minor repairs;9.1 throw it again;9.6 ReceivingThe process is very tortuous, and it is felt that reviewers and editors pay more attention to the catalytic reaction itself and the active data. They are very careful and rigorous and require comprehensive work.

(4) Thank | lydy

in early July, Jul 04, 2018 started under reviewAug 27, 2018 Under Editor EvaluationThe kinetic analysis of the methane combustion catalyzed by the Pd-Pt bimetallic catalyst has been done for several days, and I don't know what the result is!This is my fourth sci, although not as exciting as before, but still hope to be in!

(2) Thank | qi_diracjie@163.com

Dr. has acceptd three articles before and after the two-year period. The journals are highly efficient, and the opinions are also valuable. The journal has strict requirements on the integrity of the article!

(2) Thank | MaYY@cugb.edu.cn

The journal requirements are very strict, the editor is very nice, the review is very professional and serious, and the questions are very constructive, supplementing relevant experimental data, and after the overhaul, it lasted for 3 and a half months.Emphasis on the catalytic mechanism, a more comfortable one-time submission experience.

(0) Thank | 15030501035@163.com

There are two previous articles, this is the third one, but each review process is a different experience. This time the second trial has exceeded the time of the first trial, and it is still UnderReview, don't know what is the situation?Is it that the reviewers are going out to play?However, the overall experience is getting more and more difficult!

(0) Thank | 2782420162@qq.com

2017.12.02 Submitted on Saturday2017.12.04 Monday with editor2017.12.06 under review2018.01.23 under editor evaluation2018.01.31 major revision2018.02.21 major revision submitted to journal2018.02.23 under review2018.03.15 Required Reviews Completed2018.03.19 Accepted2018.03.20 onlineSubmitted by 2018.03.282018.03.31 published volume/issueAppl. Catal. A, 2018, 558, 26-33.It took about 4 months in total.

(1) Thank | 1477762856@qq.com

Under review It’s been 70 days, it’s really exciting!This journal is not known for its efficiency, it is too funny!

(6) Thank | 2233764991@qq.com

Under Review Lasted for 45 days, the date has not changed, and anyone has a similarExperience?Not very fast?What's happening here?

(13) Thank | 2233764991@qq.com

More than a month or under review I remember that the first one is very fast. I will comment on it for more than 20 days. I don’t know how this may be the reviewer’s opinion.Agree, is it a tragedy?

(0) Thank | 879623991@qq.com

Master's first SCI paper, which lasted 2 and a half months.The mechanism research is deep, and the amount of data and novelty are not much required, far less than the level of Catalyst B in the later.

(2) Thank | 喵小瓜

for 3 months, the article finally accepted.This journal is really good, the review is particularly rigorous, and asked about 50 questions, each of which is particularly valuable. The journals are really rigorous journals, and individuals feel that submissions are much more difficult than those with a factor of 7.Theoretical mechanism research is rich.

(2) Thank | 572020211@qq.com

The first trial is very fast, and the results will be less than one month.Four reviewers, the opinions were quite professional, and a total of 22 were mentioned.After the second trial, the three reviewers agreed to receive, a minor repair, gave some comments on the format, the editor gave the minor repair, and said that after the repair, they can be acceptd.Write a letter to the editorial department during the submission process, and reply to the email two or three days later.I feel very efficient and faster.Thanks~06/29/17 Submitted to Journal07/02 Manuscript Number Assigned Assign manuscript number07/27 Interim Decision-Major Revision Overhaul08/31 Resubmitted09/02 Under Review09/05 Required Revision Completed End of the second trial09/16 Interim Decision-Minor Revision Minor Repair09/17 Resubmitted09/18/17 Accept

(8) Thank | scutpmj@163.com

7月2号 Last time, July 6th for review, August 2nd for review comments, three reviewers, 30 comments, bad reply, edit to overhaul,Returned on August 18, and submitted for review on August 21, looking forward to good news.

(2) Thank | 572020211@qq.com

7月2号 Last time, July 6th for review, August 2nd for review comments, three reviewers, 30A few comments, not good reply, the editor gave a major repair, returned on August 18, and submitted for review on August 21, looking forward to good news.

(1) Thank | 572020211@qq.com

Aug 16 2017: Initial Date SubmittedAug 17 2017:with editorAug 18 2017: rejectThe processing is very fast, but I feel that the editor did not look seriously. It is estimated that there are too many manuscripts and can only be re-submited.

(1) Thank | o(∩_∩)o 哈哈

Submission 2nd day for review, 27 days later status update time, but still under review.After another 8 days, the result was rejected.Sure enough, the first two reviewers had a very high opinion, and the third reviewer also felt that they could not, so they were rejected.Although rejected, the speed of the journal and the scientific nature of the review are worthy of recognition.Only one of the reviewers must not be my research direction, and the opinions are all about the dynamics model.It feels a pity that luck is worse.

(1) Thank | 顾十一

4-4-2017Submission, 8-5-2017 overhaul, 11-5-2017 modified return, 24-5-2017 small modified grammar, 28-5-2017 reception.Editors and reviewers are very serious and look forward to further increases in impact factors.

(2) Thank | sundaolai111@yahoo.co.jp

Published on August 16th, and experienced two minor repairs in the middle, and received it on December 31. It is not easy!Three reviewers, one suggested to change, two overhauls, edits to the overhaul, thanks to the editor for the opportunity!The review period is generally one month, and the efficiency is good!

(0) Thank | 812562093@qq.com

This article has been accepted.

(0) Thank | jwdxbjzh

This article has been accepted.

(0) Thank | jwdxb@163.com