The paper was rejected from Nature Catalysis, and the editor suggested submitting it to Communications Chemistry, guaranteeing a review. We submitted to Communications Chemistry, received review comments after three weeks, made revisions, and were accepted three weeks later. Overall, the experience was positive.

(0) 讚！ | Chong

JMCA and AMI should not interfere. Judging from the quality, the Communications Series is not something the former can copy. Of course, the IF is still very low

(0) 讚！ | dataiyang

The review process is a bit long. It has been 45 days since I transferred from small NC to now, and I have not received the result of the first review yet.

(1) 讚！ | cker

Excuse me, are you submitting the small NC for review as recommended, or have you not submitted it for review?

(0) 讚！ | Amphiaraus

nc suggests switching to this journal. How is the positioning of this journal? Is it at the level of ACS AMI JMCA?

(36) 讚！ | H7

After being rejected by Nature Communication, it is recommended to submit it elsewhere. It is a pure basic comprehensive study, and it feels a bit of a loss. It is predicted that the first impact factor in 2021 will be close to 6. Although it cannot compete with the newly released energy journals, I believe CC will be better tomorrow. The majority of the articles have a high quality. After resubmission, it went through three reviewers, and two gave very positive evaluations, leading to direct acceptance. The third reviewer provided many constructive comments. After providing a detailed response, it was also accepted.

(29) 讚！ | susa

The quality of the manuscript review is very high.

(9) 讚！ | 大兜兜

The review process is very strict. Japanese and American scholars publish quite a lot here. The journal quality is very high, and is as strict as NC. The reviewer list is also publicly displayed. It is a top publication in the field of chemistry and materials.

(10) 讚！ | Jindiai