It has been over a month since Xiao Xiu submitted his article to the journal

(1) 讚！ | 康师傅脑残酸菜面

Two reviewers accepted the review, one of them finished reviewing the next day, and the other has not finished reviewing until now, wasting the time saved by the first reviewer. Hope for a good result

(0) 讚！ | greedyboy

Just after posting an inquiry thread, I received a rejection notice and was advised to submit to another journal, with a recommended one provided. All this happened within a 5-day timeframe

(0) 讚！ | 可爱熊001

How long did it take for you to receive the rejection letter? I’m in the same situation as you, my submission became DIP on the fourth day. I want to switch my submission, but I haven't received a rejection letter yet, so I'm hesitant to take action

(0) 讚！ | 可爱熊001

5.18 Submitted for Review

(0) 讚！ | greedyboy

After delivery, it is directly DIP, without even looking at it, but the speed is quite fast

(0) 讚！ | Spike

5.4 submitted, 5.7 with editor, still with editor now. If there is a desk rejection without any reason, we will not submit again in the future

(0) 讚！ | greedyboy

How is the paper going? Have you submitted it?

(0) 讚！ | 1234asdf

How long has your paper been with the editor? Mine has been with the editor for seven days already

(0) 讚！ | 1234asdf

Excuse me, how long has your paper been with the editor? It's been seven days for me already, still with the editor

(0) 讚！ | 1234asdf

3.27 submitted
3.27 under review, invite 2 reviewers
Without saying, very fast, submitted for review on the same day
4.10 under review, 6 reviewers invited, 3 accepted
4.19 minor revise
5.6 revised
5.14 accepted

(1) 讚！ | macronanosmall

24.1.31 submitted
24.2.2 under review, so fast, pray for good feedback

(1) 讚！ | Till-I

Just sent it over not 20 minutes ago, what's up with the direct DIP?

(1) 讚！ | Xavieryan

From submission to acceptance took over a month, the review process was very fast with two reviewers. The first review took two weeks and the feedback was very professional. Hope the journal continues to improve

(0) 讚！ | 猜猜看

10.10 with editor
10.11 under review
11.11 major revision
11.25 with editor
11.26 under review
12.5 accepted
The reviewer's comments are very pertinent, the overall efficiency of the journal is high, and I wish it continues to improve

(29) 讚！ | lambertliu

Ah... It's all about manipulating peer reviews.

(0) 讚！ | HYP95

Very good journal, the submission was assigned to an editor the next day, and the review process was fast. The first review took about 3 weeks, and the editor requested major revisions. After making the revisions, one reviewer was not satisfied and requested minor revisions. The editor accepted the revisions on the same day they were made. The overall submission experience was excellent, and I am grateful to editor Prof. Ren and editor Prof. Mori. I hope MTP (the journal) can soon return to the top tier.

(58) 讚！ | 打爆你的小馒头

Very slow, dragging on and on.

(1) 讚！ | 多多发SCI

Generally, if the quality of a paper is not good, editors will politely say that it does not meet the requirements. In the case of the PR series, they would directly tell you that your quality is not up to par. Please assess the level of your manuscript objectively. However, are you sure you can blame the reviewers for this?

(0) 讚！ | Ai_王二狗

When did they accept your article? It has been over ten days since I sent my revised draft back, but I haven't received any news yet.

(0) 讚！ | Chen accept

The article was rejected by Yu Ying, an editor from Central China Normal University, on the grounds that it did not fit the theme of the journal.

(3) 讚！ | GJM0123

May I ask how to check the submission status? I logged into my account using my email, but there are no submission files inside.

(0) 讚！ | 东周乖乖的奶糖

Below is the timeline:

Submitted: 2022.5.1
With Editor: 2022.5.1
Under Review: 2022.5.4
Required Reviews Completed: 2022.6.12
Major Revision: 2022.6.13 (9 comments, with 4 requiring simulation supplementation)
Reversion Submitted to Journal: 2022.7.6
With Editor: 2022.7.6
Under Review: 2022.7.8
Under Review: 2022.7.18
Required Reviews Completed: 2022.7.22
Minor Revision: 2022.7.22 (requires certain supplemental work to be included in supporting information)
Reversion Submitted to Journal: 2022.7.23
With Editor: 2022.7.23
Accepted: 2022.7.24

(1) 讚！ | 市民7

A purely simulated work was first rejected after submitting to MD. It took several weeks to carefully revise according to the reviewers' comments. Later, it was submitted to Mater Today Nano, with three reviewers: two positive and one slightly negative. Although it was rejected, the work received recognition from the top experts. After carefully revising according to the reviewers' comments, it was submitted to MTP. After over a month, the reviewers provided nine major revisions, which were challenging to address despite the limited number of comments. A significant amount of additional work was added. During this period, another paper needed to be revised urgently. It was hurriedly completed in 20 days and fortunately received unanimous recognition from the reviewers. I am grateful to Prof. Shuo Chen and the reviewers for their recognition of the work, and I hope that MTP can successfully return to the top tier.

(1) 讚！ | 市民7

It's so disappointing. The research direction is consistent with the editor-in-chief's, but it got rejected by the deputy editor for not aligning with the journal's theme. I want to ask Yuying from Central China Normal University, are you serious?

(4) 讚！ | 拖累大家