Why did I send two reminders, but the editor-in-chief didn't reply to my emails? Has anyone encountered the same situation before? It has been two months since submission, and eight weeks of review. However, I have never received a response to my reminders

(0) 讚！ | 急急急

Accepted 12 September 2023
Accepted On 16 August 2023
Submitted On 20 July 2023
Submission difficulty is moderate; Editor Yao is very nice, email communication is very pleasant; Best wishes for the journal's continued success!!!

(0) 讚！ | 热爱生活的打工人

The comments were received nearly 2 months after submission. A minor revision was required in the first review, and the questions and suggestions raised by the two reviewers are very targeted. We revised and submitted it after two weeks, and it got accepted in one week.

(0) 讚！ | tt3393

The processing speed of this journal is relatively normal. The submission has been submitted for two months, and the first-instance overhaul is directly accepted after more than one month after returning.

(0) 讚！ | Hardworking bird

First trial minor repair, returning one month later.Submission period:2017.05.08 contribution;2017.08.23 First trial retreat;2017.08.28 Revised;2017.10.10 Receive, slightly modified;2017.10.15 Recruitment.Overall evaluation: efficiency is still high!After all, the number of articles in the first issue is very small, and this speed is already good.

(0) 讚！ | shaw1314

11-Apr-2017: Submitted; 12-Apr-2017: Assigning editor; 21-Apr-2017: Under review; 24-May-2017: Reject. Rejected; looks like improvement is necessary. I heard that this journal is quite easy to get in, but my paper was rejected, and I need to add more data. There were four reviewers. The first one asked to add more characterizations, add comparisons, and add curves of iron ions vs time. The second reviewer said that the article can be published, but there were three places that needed to be polished; also three comments. The third reviewer gave two comments, the second of which said that the discussion of the results was superficial and the paper lacked novelty so not suitable for publication. The fourth reviewer gave points, one was that a sentence was not appropriate, which is easy to fix, and the other is to add a characterization. Overall, the reviewers are professional. I need to improve the paper, still got work to do.

(1) 讚！ | (*^__^*) 嘻嘻

Hope to have a good result

(0) 讚！ | freshman

is better, 2014-4-17Submission, 2014-7-12 minor repair, 2017-7-28 receiving

(2) 讚！ | Justin

The journal is relatively good, 20-Jul-2012 select, 24-Sep-2012 return to overhaul; 15-Oct-2012 revised and submitted again, 12-Dec-2012 received.

(1) 讚！ | 匿名