On the morning of April 24, 2024, two reviewers were invited, one accepted the review; in the afternoon, the second reviewer accepted the review. Overall, this is due to too many squeezed manuscripts and too slow editing submission speeds

(0) 讚！ | 大懒猫

I applied a month ago and haven't heard anything yet. My junior applied three months ago and got rejected

(0) 讚！ | 大懒猫

24.01.28 submitted to journal

(0) 讚！ | bbbbb

I'm dying of laughter. Your boss really dares to say that, and you actually believe him. You can't even touch a strand of hair from this journal CNS. It's hilarious.

(0) 讚！ | 012456

Mine is too, what does it look like now?

(0) 讚！ | C

I heard that nuclear materials will be strictly reviewed in the future to enhance the influence of journals, so it is unlikely to continue with excessive publishing. I hope it can return to its previous peak moments and also improve its impact factor.

(0) 讚！ | Fight领域顶刊

Although it is theoretically a top journal in the field of nuclear materials, the quality of the work published in it is quite inconsistent. I have read excellent articles that are on par with other top journals, as well as some poorly written articles that make me doubt the author's qualifications. However, regardless of that, I am the one who knows best about the quality of my own research. I can confidently say that I have done my best in the recent work that has been accepted by JNM.

(1) 讚！ | Automata

Did you get any results?

(1) 讚！ | 小竹子樱

After three or four days of submission, it changed to "decision in process." However, "decision in process" remained for ten days without any changes. What is the situation?
If it is a rejection, why haven't they provided any information after ten days? If it is not a rejection, then what have they been doing for these ten days?

(0) 讚！ | 568

The reviewing speed is very fast, and the editor directly gave a rejection after reading it.

(5) 讚！ | QS

I am a second-year PhD student. I had two successful submissions in the past six months, both of which took about two and a half months for acceptance, followed by a month and a half for peer review and around 20 days for revisions before final acceptance. Overall, the quality is acceptable, and it has a significant influence in the field of nuclear science and technology. However, it is considered average in the field of materials science. Nevertheless, if I plan to pursue a career in nuclear science and technology, it is still cost-effective to submit to this journal when applying to universities or research institutes. After all, professionals in the field still recognize this journal. The overall difficulty is around 7.5 out of 10. It requires a certain level of innovation, good data, and in-depth theoretical analysis. I recently submitted another paper to this journal and feel that it is still well-managed.

(27) 讚！ | Doctor. Ma

The first submission went smoothly, mainly because it needed to have innovative points. I received more submissions in the past two months, and the journal is quite good in the field of nuclear power. There is still no news about the second submission. I hope to have one accepted soon. I wonder if anyone has been submitting articles quickly recently.

(0) 讚！ | Fight领域顶刊

Your teacher is quite strict. This pie is also too big. There is no necessary connection between this journal and CNS. The gap is too big, big, big.

(0) 讚！ | 大雪坪

A small genius, brought to fulfill graduation requirements. First manuscript uploaded on November 2nd. Feedback received on December 23rd, with a total of 21 major and minor revisions. The reviewer was extremely meticulous, causing both love and hate towards him. Returned on February 9th; submitted for review on February 19th, and status changed to "under review." Received acceptance email on February 25th. Many thanks, as perseverance pays off.

(5) 讚！ | 铁臂阿佳佳

Second article, still have to give a good review to the journal. The review speed is considered fast compared to what I have encountered, both in terms of submission and subsequent revisions. I can only say thank you to the nuclear materials editors and reviewers for their sharp and insightful comments (in the field of ion irradiation). Thank you, Mr. Was, for the quick reviews on both occasions!

They both provided feedback after one month of submission, major revisions took one month (usually spending 20 days carefully revising and responding to about 20-40 minor issues, sometimes correcting and providing suggestions for professional terms in the figure captions!). The second round of revisions took one month (nervous and anxious), and the minor revisions (usually very satisfied with the changes) were completed in a few days or supplemented with a small experimental verification. Anyway, my personal level is limited, but their feedback is really beneficial, and it greatly improves the quality. (Of course, different reviewers and editors have different issues.)

In theory, it is not difficult to understand, but it feels like some people are purposely giving a 2-star rating... Are they joking about themselves?

(7) 讚！ | 笼

Do you have any audacious ideas? You should become an academician directly!

(0) 讚！ | 龙哥123

Two reviewers, one asked a few normal questions, while the other one had absolutely no expertise and raised over twenty irrelevant rubbish questions. Just the transfer of data from supporting materials to the main text accounted for five questions. What's even more ridiculous is that they claimed there was an issue with the sequence of my data. This is really absurd. Although the quality of the article may be slightly poor, I have published two papers as the first author in June and October of 2021, one on 3M and the other on separation and purification techniques. I also regularly read literature, so there can't possibly be an issue with the sequence of my data. Is it that this reviewer, who considers themselves a big shot, has not read relevant literature, or am I truly lacking in knowledge? Despite all this, they still want me to resubmit the paper for consideration after making revisions. This is truly disruptive.

(0) 讚！ | 投稿靠命运

This is a group of industry experts, which is considered as a top-notch team. This is my second JNM article this year. The review process is fairly fast, and we basically use JNM as a backup plan. There is not much else to say.

(5) 讚！ | yk6551953

After submitting, I was rejected after two and a half months. The review comment was just one sentence: "Not suitable for the journal," which is simply ridiculous. Maybe my level is not good enough, but to lead me on like this is too unfair.

(4) 讚！ | liang_chaofei

This is a large group in the industry, and basically JNM uses it as a guarantee.

(319) 讚！ | yk6551953

In the past, this journal used to be renowned, just like nuclear fusion. However, in recent years, nuclear fusion has become increasingly stronger, while the reputation of this journal has declined significantly. The articles published in this journal can't even reach the average level of the second-tier journals, let alone the highest tier. In recent submissions, the review process has been extremely lengthy, and it is common for reviewers to delay for up to six months. It is not suitable for those who are eager to graduate and need timely feedback. After waiting painstakingly for half a year, the reviewer's comments only consist of three irrelevant and insignificant sentences.

(5) 讚！ | 邱啸臣

As a third-tier journal, it is an okay journal.
As a second-tier journal, I can only say, how dare you!
It was once rated as a first-tier journal before, I feel embarrassed to tell others that I have published articles in the first-tier journal...

(10) 讚！ | 科研-狗都不干

Sep 29, 2020 submitted to journal
Sep 29, 2020 Under review
Apr 2, 2021 Major revision
Apr 28, 2021 Revision submitted to journal
May 21, 2021 Accept
Editor Gray Was
Although it was a bit slow, the reviewers were very responsible and raised many valuable questions. I don't believe the claim of monopolization from the previous commenter.

(6) 讚！ | Qin

Everything is fine, just slow.

(3) 讚！ | Qin

I believe in the closed circle phenomenon, and I also detest it myself. But in which eye did you see him monopolizing the journal? The quality of JNM articles has been poor in recent years, and besides JNM, I don't know any other magazine that would be interested in publishing low-quality articles. It is an honor for JNM to publish articles from Gary WAS's research group. Without Gary Was's support, this journal would only be in a worse state!

(0) 讚！ | 苏小云