How long will the with editor process last approximately?

(0) 讚！ | YTBZ啊！

How do you know that the editor has found three reviewers in a week? I haven't received any tracking emails.

(0) 讚！ | 我只有100多斤

Do you have any information about H and O?

(0) 讚！ | yggg

Could you please clarify if all authors need to agree in order to submit to this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 纯蓝色

May I ask if all authors need to agree in order to proceed with submitting to this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 纯蓝色

May I ask if all co-authors need to agree in order to submit to this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 纯蓝色

Employment for 2 months, 7 days.

(0) 讚！ | 5313

How many review comments do we need to receive before making a decision? Currently, we have four reviewers accepting the review.

(1) 讚！ | 森木2023

The submission was made in mid-July, and the review process was very fast. The editor found three reviewers within a week. The editor's suggestions were important, and additional experiments were given about 50 days for revisions. The revised manuscript was accepted just one or two days after resubmission. The journal impressed me most with its efficiency, followed by the editor's friendliness.

(0) 讚！ | 山河浴宇

How many reviewers are typically needed for the review process?

(0) 讚！ | 5313

Submitted in April 2024, the manuscript was quickly handled by the editor, who rejected it outright and asked for a resubmission with additional XPS data. After three rounds of revisions (mostly minor issues due to lack of attention), it was finally accepted in early August. The editor was quite lenient. However, those who have submitted to this journal before should know that the editor specializes in XPS and seems to have their own theories.

(0) 讚！ | president-D

This journal seems to enjoy asking people to resubmit, as I have been rejected and resubmitted, only to be rejected again...

(0) 讚！ | xiaoXQ

I have submitted to more than a dozen journals and have never reviewed other journals. This submission experience is truly unforgettable, especially because Vacuum is one of the journals I have known since my postgraduate studies. The editorial process was actually very fast, with decisions being made within two to three days after submission or review. However, I do not agree with the reviewers' rejection, as there are many papers using the same method in Vacuum. The editors did not appropriately differentiate the reviewers' comments, which is regrettable to me.

(0) 讚！ | 路途漫无期

Excuse me, does this journal accept articles on metal materials applied in vacuum?

(0) 讚！ | 茶叶

The submission was made at the end of March 2023, reviewed by two people, returned for revisions in mid-May, resubmitted in July, and feedback was received at the end of August. One was accepted, but one reviewer was still not satisfied with the responses. Uncertain how to proceed, it was left unattended for a long time. In February 2024, the editor emailed stating no response had been received, and the submission was cancelled. However, I was encouraged to revise and resubmit. Determined, I addressed the issues and resubmitted in March. This time, it was reviewed by 9 people, 6 accepted and 3 returned for revisions in late April. Unfortunately, one of the reviewers who previously rejected the submission was included again and rejected it once more. After revisions were made and resubmitted in June, the feedback was returned on July 25th, with two acceptances and a final rejection from the same reviewer. The editor suggested resubmitting a substantially revised version as a new submission. After enduring over a year of turmoil, it felt like a bitter pill to swallow. I have no intention of resubmitting. Comparing the quality and methodology of my paper to those published in reputable journals, it is evident that my work was on par. Despite gaining approval from the majority of reviewers, it was ultimately rejected due to one negative opinion. The road of research is not easy, rejection is common, but this unforgettable rejection is truly disheartening.

(0) 讚！ | 路途漫无期

Efficiency is too high
2024-05-31 submitted to journal
2024-05-31 with editor
2024-06-01 under review

(0) 讚！ | 潇洒哥

The latest real-time impact factor is out, showing a decrease instead of an increase. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is not very friendly to journals with large numbers of submissions from Chinese nationals but not produced domestically. Be cautious of the decline zone

(0) 讚！ | 随风

How did you respond to this XPS?

(0) 讚！ | oneshy

The editorial process was quite fast, as the submission was processed the day after, and it remained under review thereafter. However, it was confusing that the editor assigned five reviewers, but fortunately their questions were not too difficult. After submitting a reply, we waited another month and a half before finally receiving acceptance. Overall, the process was relatively smooth, although it was surprising to encounter five reviewers for a second-tier publication

(0) 讚！ | gefeiniu

Submitted to acceptance within over 2 months, quite fast, edited twice

(0) 讚！ | 我愿潇洒如鹰

How do you respond to a reaction without h or o? The editor is very persistent about this

(0) 讚！ | 科研美女

How do you reject an h and o reaction?

(0) 讚！ | 科研美女

Recommendation reasons: 1. The processing speed is very fast. If approved, it will be sent for review within three days. If not, it will be rejected within one or two days, saving your time. 2. The reviewers are generally very friendly and will not easily reject your article. They provide many revision suggestions, which greatly improve the quality of the article after overall revisions. Most importantly, they usually select a recommended reviewer from your list. If you have connections with well-known resources, it will be even better. 3. The editor is an expert in XPS and TEM. If your article involves these areas, be sure to analyze them carefully. 4. Please respond uniformly to the editor's handling requests for XPS: Usually, when processing XPS, it is calibrated with C1S, with a default C1S binding energy of 284.8 eV. However, in an article published by the editor, it is suggested that the C1S binding energy may vary with different measurement times and materials, and cannot simply use 284.8 eV. You should combine the work function of each measurement; if the work function cannot be measured, then cite a literature that has measured it. The standard binding energy of C1S = 289.58 - work function, specific references can be found at [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apsusc.2018.04.226. [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2023.112110

(15) 讚！ | liang_chaofei

First of all, the review speed is very fast. If it is not suitable, it will be rejected the next day without any dragging. If it is suitable, it will be under review in less than 3 days, so it is a rare good journal. Secondly, the review comments are very objective, but not difficult, and after the revision, your paper will be significantly improved in quality. The editor-in-chief pays particular attention to characterization methods such as XPS, SEM, and XRD, but not much else. Moreover, they are relatively friendly to Chinese authors. Currently, the top three institutions for submission in China are Harbin Institute of Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Central South University. The reviewers in China mainly come from these three institutions, so it can be said that this journal is Chinese-friendly. Finally, many experts believe that this journal does not require much innovation, but I disagree. If you don't believe it, you can try submitting in March to May after the new year. The journal will reject you in minutes. Since 2022, this journal has high requirements for metals and composite materials. If you don't have excellent ball-rod high resolution or atomic probe, there is no need to submit because you will be rejected in minutes. Lastly, I must mention that the impact factor of this journal will definitely increase, so it is advisable to invest early. I cannot disclose the reasons, but you understand

(29) 讚！ | 华大

Several reviewers

(0) 讚！ | 哈哈哈哈528