Nowadays, almost all universities no longer use the classification of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. There is no scientific basis, with a focus on popular disciplines. Traditional chemistry is severely suppressed, and the high-ranking classifications are dominated by materials journals.

(0) 讚！ | xueba

I don't know what the Chinese Academy of Sciences' division is up to, it's a typical case of amateurs guiding professionals.

(14) 讚！ | 不会游泳的小菜鸡

Upstairs, your submission span is a bit wide... from jacs to jpcb?

(0) 讚！ | 小奕在努力

Excuse me, sir, for this journal, in 2020, is the upgraded version top or is the basic version top?

(3) 讚！ | 蓝鱼箫声

I remember that this journal in 2020, was the upgraded version the top journal? Or was the basic version the top journal?

(0) 讚！ | 蓝鱼箫声

I used to submit to Elsevier before, but compared to that, JCPB is really fast. The first review took 34 days, the second review after major revisions took 16 days, and then they accepted it on the same day I submitted minor revisions. I feel that the editors and reviewers at JCPB are really responsible and seem to read more carefully than JCP reviewers. However, I feel that JCP papers do have a deeper overall mechanism, and JCP is also faster.

JPCB has been declining year by year and is now considered a non-top tier journal in the third zone. Its rating is only 6.8. I hope someone knowledgeable can tell me about the current recognition of JPCB in the industry and whether it is not enough to consider for job applications. Welcome to discuss, as I am not familiar with these journals being from a non-physical chemistry background.

(2) 讚！ | ut725725

Submitted on 4.14, published online on 7.23 (Title: Deeper Insights into the Bohart–Adams Model in a Fixed-Bed Column). The content of the paper holds significance for beginners in adsorption research to comprehend breakthrough curves.

(13) 讚！ | 浪潮儿

ACS submission completed, directly changed to Under Review.

(0) 讚！ | 浪潮儿

Why did I receive a PDF file after waiting for twenty days, but I don't know if this is the reviewer's opinion? How can I tell if it has been reviewed by the reviewer?

(0) 讚！ | 瘦瘦不瘦

11.5 Submission, the system displayed “under review” the next day; 11.10 I received an email, saying that the manuscript was assigned to the editor, but should the assigned editor be earlier than the “under review” status? Does anyone know what's going on?

(0) 讚！ | 必中欧耶

Three weeks after submitting to JPCC, I received a minor repair notice. What I did is about a polymer porous material. Polymers should be submitted to JPCB, while porous materials can be submitted to JPCC. At that time, I felt that JPCC had a higher impact factor and then I submitted it to JPCC. As a result, the editor still felt that the direction  of the paper was more suitable for JPCB and then it was transferred to JPCB.

(1) 讚！ | yyfdemajia

The submission to JACS was rejected in October 2019 and it was recommended to transfer to JPC. According to the review comments, the article was carefully revised and then transferred to JPCB. The article was submitted on November 27, and it arrived at the hands of Associated editor of JPCB Joan-Emma Shea. On December 22, the review comment of a minor revision was returned; On December 23, revised article version was submitted. And at the end of the Christmas holiday on December 31, Dr. Shea sent a letter of acceptance. A happily welcomed 2020. Congratulations to Dr. Shea for taking over the Editor-in-chief of JPC in 2020!

(10) 讚！ | PW-BUCM

really good, old-fashioned journals.The editor is very serious and the reviewer is very professional.Received after three modifications.The journal proofreading is also very careful.

(3) 讚！ | Anonymous

Actually, JPCB is still very good. Although the article was first introduced to Chemistry of Materials, we accepted it and waited for two months to directly accept it. But the impact factor dropped by 5Point

(4) 讚！ | fhhbnu@gmail.com

Make changes after two months, return after one week, receive the next day, how much can IF be next year?

(1) 讚！ | 匿名

The specific submission process was as follows: On October 5, the editor sent a reply regarding the manuscript. It was necessary to confirm the authorship. After a major revision, requiring re-examination, three questions were asked. A minor change was made so there was no need to re-examine the paper. We submitted the revised draft on December 17, and we received the deputy editor’s opinion on December 18.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

4 selectd in the month, returned to review comments one month.Three reviewers, one receiving directly, one giving a change, and one rejecting the manuscript, were rejected by an Indian editor.JPCB has dropped very quickly in the past few years. The latest IF is 3.7. Now editing is more and more critical, and it is very important to theoretical calculations.I selectd for a thermodynamic experiment and a fitting article that was reviewed by the reviewers without exploring them at the molecular structure level.Later changed to AICHE to understand.It is recommended that the JPCB be tied to the theoretical calculations, which is more likely.

(1) 讚！ | 匿名

Online submission URL: https://acs.manuscriptcentral.com/acs

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

IF:2006=4.115;2007=4.086;2008=4.189;2009=3.471;2010=3.603

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

recently submitted an article, made up some experiments, received.The reviewer is very responsible, and the comments are very professional and helpful. The deputy is a Chinese. It feels good, although there is no direct contact.I hope that the next modification time can be given a little longer: on the 13th, I received a modification letter, I have to fill in the experiment, and I asked for a return draft before the 30th of the same month.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

recently received an article, the first time to select for 2 reviewers, one said no problem, one may be doing this, questioning the rejection, but the questions areVery pertinent, well-founded and convincing.I feel that the reviewer is very responsible.According to the review comments, the amendments were made. In particular, the questions raised by the reviewers who refused to submit the papers were answered with other literature support, and then received and accepted.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

18 Days said to be overhauled, changed after 30 days of submitment, accepted after 18 days.The proof is especially serious.It is a good journal.I feel that the last year is better, because the emergence of jpcc has diverted a lot of articles.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

The first SCI, minor repair, reviewer did not put forward any professional advice, just the format and grammar errors, but the ACS correction work is very detailed, a lot of grammatical errors changed throughout

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

JPCB Mainly look at the research group, some of the research groups themselves are JPCB professional households, because the consistency of natural rejection rate is relatively low.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

50 days to the message, return a review opinion that the article is inappropriate, no other substantive comments.It is recommended to change the colloid interface journal

(0) 讚！ | 匿名