No, cannot find it.

(0) 讚！ | 飘来飘去的蒲公英

Hello, can you check the specific status of your submission through the AISWEI official WeChat account?

(0) 讚！ | het

Please share the timeline for submitting to Science Bulletin. We welcome everyone to share in the field of new energy batteries.
3.07, submitted
3.12, under consideration
3.20, Under Review
We are still following up, not sure if it has been sent out for external review yet. Is it normal that the Elsevier public account cannot be found? Or do reviewers need to accept the invitation to see it? How long does it take to receive the review comments?

(0) 讚！ | het

Submitted a review article to a small research group, not by invitation. It was found that many people were not very clear about the submission process of the journal, and the comments section was not very detailed. It was confusing to distinguish between "Under Consideration" and "Under Review". Below is the submission process:
January 6, 2025: Submitted, showing "Under Consideration"
January 22, 2025: Under Review
February 6, 2025: Received feedback: all three reviewers suggested minor revisions
February 13, 2025: Resubmitted after revisions
February 14, 2025: Under Review
March 4, 2025: Received feedback: all three reviewers suggested acceptance, editor requested revisions to figures and additional tweets
March 5, 2025: Resubmitted after revisions
March 12, 2025: Accepted.

(0) 讚！ | catalysischina

In the field of materials, at the level of AM/EES, one cannot usually submit to AEM/AFM/ACS nano/ESM. If these journals are still out of reach, then one would typically consider Science Bulletin. When looking for a job, an AFM paper is definitely more useful than Science Bulletin, by a thousand times. AFM is widely recognized as a top journal, whereas Science Bulletin is...

(0) 讚！ | penguin

Looking at your ID, I can tell that you usually use a Huawei phone, wear Li-Ning clothes, and enjoy watching the movie "Wolf Warrior".

(1) 讚！ | penguin

Carrying around a contemporary masterpiece is quite annoying. The relationship-based journal has hardly any serious articles. Those who can say hello can usually get published, while those who can't are never given a chance to be reviewed. They publish a bunch of letters every year to boost their impact factor.

(1) 讚！ | fission Yeast

Please translate the following passage into English: 1

(1) 讚！ | 小小小白X

The upstairs is really dark, and if you can submit to JACS, you should definitely submit to JACS first. Just because some articles are not accepted by JACS doesn't mean they are not good. Academician Xue Qikun's unconventional quantum Hall effect paper was not accepted by Science, but was submitted to NSR. Professor Li Yuliang's graphene acetylene paper was not accepted by any first-tier journals, but was eventually published in CC. It's important to focus on the quality of the articles rather than the prestige of the journal. It can only be said that this journal's electrocatalysis is actually similar to JACS, but not every article surpasses JACS.

(0) 讚！ | 稍远

I have never submitted to this journal, but I support domestic journals. The two people above seem to be eager to see Chinese journals decline, not supporting them and still making sarcastic remarks here. Speaking Chinese but not looking forward to China's success.

(0) 讚！ | King Baum

Haha, that cracked me up. Let me share mine: I submitted a paper to Science Bulletin this year. My first submission to Nature was rejected, and so was my submission to Science. I decided to submit to Science Bulletin and believe that in the future, Science Bulletin will be on par with Nature and Science in various fields. I have faith in the power of our domestic journals.

(0) 讚！ | penguin

Advanced scammer, everyone is trying to scam Jacs now.

(0) 讚！ | EricYoung

The boss is a member of the editorial board and submitted two papers this year. The first paper was rejected after being submitted to JACS and PNAS, so it was resubmitted to this journal without being reviewed. The second paper was rejected after the first review by NC, so it was resubmitted to Science Bulletin, where it was reviewed and sent to four reviewers for the first review, which took three weeks. The second review took seven weeks for some reason, but it was eventually accepted. In the field of electrocatalysis, the quality of the articles should be similar to those of JACS and Angew, or slightly lower.

(0) 讚！ | 稍远

It has been two weeks since submission and it has been under consideration the whole time. I'm wondering if this journal usually takes so long to process submissions? What is the next step after under consideration?

(0) 讚！ | 自律达人

May I ask how long it takes for review? My application has been under consideration for 1 week, I'm afraid it will be rejected soon.

(0) 讚！ | 龙vimpire

May I ask how long it will take for the review process? My application has been "under consideration" for 1 week.

(0) 讚！ | 龙vimpire

Is there any difference in the positioning and article orientation between Science Bulletin and National Science Review? Which one is better now?

(0) 讚！ | kingkingred

Hello, how did your article turn out in the end? I would like to inquire about the different stages that a submission goes through after being submitted.

(0) 讚！ | 皮卡丘68

Hello, I would like to inquire about the changes in the status that occur after submitting a contribution.

(0) 讚！ | 皮卡丘68

Yesterday my article status changed to draft, I don't know what happened? I didn't receive any email, can anyone please tell me what's going on?

(0) 讚！ | 强中王

I was just assigned as of 7.25 as an editor, but today on 7.27 it is still under consideration. I feel like it is about to be rejected.

(0) 讚！ | JayII

The submission was just made on July 18th, assigned to an editor on the 20th, and the status changed to "under considering". It has remained under considering until today. Can I ask everyone, is this status correct? Is it a bad omen with little chance of success?

(1) 讚！ | 强中王

I read an article in Angew about zinc ion battery additives for Zn-I batteries. The same additives were published by someone else in Angew first, and then this journal published an article on zinc ion batteries with the same additives. This journal is completely a fake journal, just for entertainment within the circle, with no recognition!

(0) 讚！ | 小哲000

After undergoing three rounds of review, it was finally accepted on 16th July 2024. It was the best work during my doctoral period, and I finally found a home for it.

(0) 讚！ | 中科院岳麓山实验室院长

Manuscript rejection
Editorial decisions are not simply based on counting votes or rank assessments. Sci. Bull. only has space to publish a relatively small portion of submitted papers each year and the primary responsibilities of us are to our readers and the scientific community at large; therefore, many submissions will be declined, despite favorable peer-review comments sometimes.

(0) 讚！ | 111%