2024.05.20 submit
2024.05.22 with editor
2024.05.24 under review

(0) 讚！ | Ypass

The direction of fluid-structure interaction mechanics is more in line with JFS. The article was directly rejected last year, but after adding a lot of new content over the past year and going through one major revision and one minor revision, it was finally accepted. The reviewers seemed to be colleagues in the same field, asking very professional questions and paying close attention to detail, even pointing out some synonymous words that needed to be changed. The requirement for innovative points is high, and rewriting core sections is required in major revisions. Thanks to JFS for the best New Year gift! Hope the journal will continue to improve!

(1) 讚！ | 快快毕业lt

2023.12.30 submit
2024.1.2 with editor
2024 1.4 under review

(0) 讚！ | 阿君要努力

Is there a word limit for this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 沉思的托克维尔

submit 2022 11.02 - This means that something needs to be submitted by November 2, 2022.
required reviews completed 2023 2.14 - This indicates that the necessary reviews have been finished by February 14, 2023.
decision in process 2023 2.24 - This suggests that a decision is currently being made, and it is expected to be finalized by February 24, 2023.
mini revision 2023 3.05 - This means that a small revision is required and it should be completed by March 5, 2023.
accept 2023 5.02 - This implies that something has been accepted for a specific date, which is May 2, 2023.

(0) 讚！ | zk920826

From submission to the end with the editor, it took a whole month, which is really slow. The reason for rejection is: considering the content of your paper and the proposed contribution, we will not review your paper. Please note that due to the large number of papers submitted to our journal, only about 30% of papers are considered for review.

(0) 讚！ | LCC

Received at Editorial Office 20 Aug 2021
Article revised 2 Aug 2022
Article accepted for publication 23 Jan 2023
I really have to complain about the speed of this journal. The external review experts and the editorial office are extremely slow. I submitted the revised manuscript on 20th August 2022, and the external review experts completed their review on 19th October. I've been waiting and waiting, and finally, on 23rd January 2023, I received the final decision! It's incredibly slow!!!!

(1) 讚！ | 大鹏北飞

Submitted for 6 months, initially tried because I had never submitted to this journal before. Received feedback after 6 months, rejected. Opened it and saw three reviewers. All of their names start with "F". They really act like XX. Where did they conduct the model test? They should have marked "carry out model test". They provided a series of irrelevant comments that I can tolerate. But the key feedback was really from someone who knows nothing, absolutely nothing. It feels like you wrote a dish of beef rice, and they insisted that the pork in it is not tasty. Very clueless. This is my first time submitting to this journal, and not only is the speed extremely slow, but the reviewers are also highly unprofessional. No wonder the impact factor has been declining significantly in recent years. Everyone can see it clearly.

(6) 讚！ | 海洋工程FSI

Rejected after submission, received the outcome one week later.

(0) 讚！ | 流体小铁蛋

14-07-2021 Submitted initial draft
10-09-2021 Received reviewer comments
30-09-2021 Submitted revisions
12-11-2021 Accepted
11-01-2022 Available online

The article I submitted is fundamentally a mathematical analysis article on the topic of structural and wave coupling, focusing on the application of offshore photovoltaics. The editor-in-chief clearly has an interest in the topic of fluid-structure coupling, but it is uncertain whether they are interested in analytical analysis or the application of offshore photovoltaics. The next day, it was sent for external review.

The two reviewers were selected from the three reviewers I recommended, which is relatively uncommon. This may be because the editor-in-chief knows and trusts my advisor. After considering the recommendations of the two reviewers, the editor-in-chief provided minor revisions. One reviewer is an expert in academia and provided targeted suggestions for minor revisions. The other reviewer is a former academic turned technology entrepreneur and provided major revisions. Their opinions were basically contradictory. After adding a lot of background information on offshore photovoltaic products and emphasizing the introduction of their company's products, it was accepted.

I have to complain about the typing team (publisher) of this journal! After we submitted the revised manuscript's LaTeX source, they sent us several emails saying that the manuscript and code were not consistent. After checking, it turned out that they themselves couldn't distinguish between the old version and the revised version. It made my advisor use words starting with "F" to curse the typing team in India. Originally, it could have been available online before the new year, but it was delayed until January 11th.

(3) 讚！ | 代大爷们儿哥

The research topic is the interaction between waves and ocean structures. It has been submitted a total of four times, with two rejections directly from the editor. The other two submissions were sent for review, one with two reviewers and the other with three reviewers. The first round of review took about two months, and the second round took one month. After two rounds of review, the paper was accepted. Overall, the review process was relatively fast. However, the editor's interest in the topic of wave-structure interaction is average, so there is a risk of direct rejection.

(0) 讚！ | Huisky

Submitted on December 12, and comments returned on April 21, and accepted on May 1. The review time is relatively long, but it is quick after revision.

(1) 讚！ | 东风43409

It was rejected one week after submission. The reason is that we will not review your paper considering the content of your paper and the proposed contribution. Please note that due to the large number of papers submitted to our journal, only about 40% of the papers are considered for review.

(6) 讚！ | 伊水河畔

Rejected in less than a week. Reason: Does not meet the scope of the journal.

(1) 讚！ | 洞悉

has been rejected, and comments were given in about a week. The content (hydraulic) is not suitable. In addition, only 50% of the journals can be accepted..

(0) 讚！ | 一颗赛题的

Reviewers are very responsible and very serious.Many grammatical errors were marked on the paper version and scanned for me.After the final modification, I acceptd it. Thank you, the brothers helped me to polish it many times.

(9) 讚！ | weiwang1461@126.com

Journal is very good, can be counted as a fluid top-level journal, submission is very difficult, it is estimated that 20% of the employment rate is good.I selectd for a few months of tragedy..

(4) 讚！ | 王建祥

Magazine was really hard, revised twice, and finally accepted, but the reviewer is indeed quite in place and stubborn, it is not easy.It is said that the journal has just risen to the 2nd district, and likes a

(1) 讚！ | 水射流

I submitted initially in June last year, and revised it in February this year, a major revision. Two months later, the revision is still in review. It’s been almost a year, and still there is no decision made. This is really slow.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

This year, in mid-June, it has been almost five months now, or in the external trial, hey, really slow.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Journal Homepage URL: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find ... ription#description

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

This journal is good

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

这杂志不错

(0) 讚！ | 匿名