2024.6.11 Rework under review

(0) 讚！ | 就是你的和

It's approximately around ten thousand pages if counted by the number of pages

(0) 讚！ | ZKYQ

Do you know how much the publication fee for this journal is?

(0) 讚！ | JOJO-

2024.4.17 under review

(0) 讚！ | 就是你的和

2024.04.14 under review (status date updated

(0) 讚！ | 不爱啃甘蔗

2024.04.08 under review (status date updated

(0) 讚！ | 不爱啃甘蔗

What reasons do you have, mine are different, too many articles that far exceed the publishable ones, hilarious

(0) 讚！ | blingbling

Record the node time
2023.12.28 Submitted (number is around 1k1)
2024.01.01 under review
2024.03.05 under review (status date updated)
2024.03.05 Still under review
Reviewing is too slow

(1) 讚！ | 不爱啃甘蔗

Why was the reason for rejection not given?

(0) 讚！ | 小张也要加油啊

Note: Submitted on the evening of February 10, 2024 at 22:00

(1) 讚！ | 小张也要加油啊

Submitted on March 20, 2023
Accepted on December 26, 2023

The review process went smoothly, and the suggestions were very constructive. I feel very lucky to have been accepted in the end.
I have published several articles in domestic SCI journals such as Petroleum Science and Oil Exploration and Development. Overall, I feel that the review process was rigorous and objective, without the issue of favoritism as some have mentioned. As a small engineer, I also found that the editorial department was open-minded when responding to expert opinions, allowing for debates and counterarguments. The review periods for a few articles ranged from 3 to 10 months, without encountering the issue of many rejections for accepted papers. On the other hand, foreign SCI journals like JPSE tend to delay for a long time, only to give an irresponsible conclusion in the end. I hope that domestic journals will continue to improve, so that we can leave our best articles on the land of our homeland

(27) 讚！ | WDycWDyc

During my doctoral studies, I submitted two papers to SPE J. Each time, the response to the reviewer's comments was at least 6000 words long. The reviewers were very thorough, and it was evident that they also carefully reviewed the theoretical formulas. Their responses were also very polite and helpful, offering constructive feedback for improvement. The article that was rejected by PS was later accepted by JPSE. Initially, I submitted to PS and JPSE for the sake of speed, as I did not want to submit to the slow-paced International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. I chose to prioritize submitting to PS over JPSE because I wanted to "cut corners" and aim for a first-tier publication, as high-quality journals in the field of rock mechanics are scarce. However, the rejection served as a reminder for me to be serious and diligent in my academic pursuits, rather than seeking shortcuts. Overall, the quality of articles in SPE J is quite good. In recent years, JPSE has published some slightly disorganized articles, but there are still a few constructive pieces. On the other hand, I have not come across any standout articles in PS. Most articles lack a solid theoretical foundation and rely heavily on software for numerical modeling, with vague theoretical sections that may not lead to accurate results. PS gives the impression of simply having a large workload and patching together different theoretical parts, thinking this constitutes "innovation". I will not submit to PS again until its fundamental nature improves (currently, I have switched to Tier 1 computational journals). Even though SPE J is a third-tier journal, I will continue to submit to it, as it is a representation of one's research expertise (which PS lacks

(0) 讚！ | 别和我吵

Xenoloto's comments are quite objective, but still he was PUAed, saying that he should improve his mindset. I am impressed. PS's overall level from editing to reviewing is not professional. Editors assigned to different directions are not industry experts or scholars. Most reviewers for this journal are domestic, how many domestic professors would review the paper themselves? Most of them are assigned to review by current graduate students, so Xenoloto's comments are relatively objective. I was previously rejected when I submitted my paper to PS, but my article has nearly a hundred basic theoretical formulas (the kind that does not need to be derived, at most occupying 30%), wrote 8400 lines of C++ code for solving, and included experimental comparisons. The theoretical results and experimental errors were within 8%, but the paper was directly rejected after review. The three reviewers seem to have a total of only 18 comments, none of which addressed the theoretical aspect (I assume they were too lazy to read or could not understand it), and instead they provided worthless comments. For example, my experiment had pressures of 45 and 55 MPa, one reviewer asked why I did not conduct tests at 40 and 50 MPa, which left me speechless. There was also a comment about my English writing being "Chinese-style English," which was baffling. When I went abroad, my GRE writing score was 4 (not high, but higher than many around me), and my TOEFL writing score was 29 (minus one point). When I went to the United States for my PhD studies, a native professor there said my writing was close to a native level. In all my previous submissions, no one has ever commented on my English writing skills (due to my foreign education background, I have hardly submitted to domestic journals, except for this PS

(1) 讚！ | 别和我吵

The layout fee is quite expensive, ranging from 8,000 to 15,000 yen, depending on the number of pages

(0) 讚！ | haley lu

Yes, proofread the email

(0) 讚！ | undefined

May I know how to see the invitation to invite some reviewers?

(0) 讚！ | 米糖咖啡

I am one of the three reviewers

(0) 讚！ | 半米围墙

May I ask, how many reviewers do you have, OP? I have two reviewers who have accepted the invitation and provided their feedback. Is that enough?

(0) 讚！ | 一个小卡拉米

Are you a graduate student at Petroleum University?

(0) 讚！ | 你可真牛逼

The submission has been accepted, and the three reviewers were all very professional, providing significant help in improving the quality of the article. The editor was also very responsible and attentive, for which I am very grateful. The impact factor is relatively high, making it a cost-effective option. I recommend everyone to submit more and support domestic SCI publications

(152) 讚！ | 半米围墙

It is not a top-tier publication, but previously dividing it into Zone 1 was somewhat extreme and far from the quality of articles in real Zone 1.

(0) 讚！ | 武痴马保国

In the comments, some people see that this journal is published domestically and think it is a low-quality journal. They submit articles that may not even be enough for the third or fourth tier journals, and if their articles are not accepted, they think it is rubbish. When everyone submits articles for job evaluation, isn't it based on the impact factor? I think the difference in impact factor between this journal and JPSE is not significant, and the categorization is also reasonable. It's just that when they can't get their articles published, they become angry.

(188) 讚！ | keaidewazi

Which expert or professor doesn't screen their own graduate students before reviewing papers nowadays? With so many submissions, do we really have to let the experts personally review all the trash? If your article can be published, it must have been carefully reviewed by experts. If you can't even pass the first screening by your own graduate students, what else is there to say?

(0) 讚！ | keaidewazi

Posted on January 5, 2022, received on February 16, 2023, so difficult...

(0) 讚！ | 人生如梦

Xiao Xiu was rejected, there are people who are even more miserable than this.

(0) 讚！ | Gstone