1.02 Submission;
5.18 First revision, with about 10 comments from two reviewers, took two months and several back-and-forths due to formatting issues, returned on 5.29;
7.03 Second revision came back with only one question from one reviewer, returned on 7.07;
7.20 Acceptance;
8.23 Proofreading;
9.11 Second proofreading;
9.19 online

(1) 讚！ | 皮皮虾der皮

The translation of "23.4.15 accept" into English is "April 23, 2015 accept."

(0) 讚！ | 科研飞舞

Addendum: On March 23, 2029, the editor said that the review has concluded, but the paper requires professional institution's polishing, and recommended one for me.

(0) 讚！ | 科研飞舞

submitted on 22.11.2;
major revision on 22.12.14;
revised submission on 23.1.12;
additional revisions on 23.2.6;
revised submission on 23.2.18;
...too agonizing

(0) 讚！ | 科研飞舞

Hello, could you please send me the formatting requirements for this journal? 450424852 at qq.com.

(0) 讚！ | ranchho

submitted on April 15, 2021;
Major revision on May 24, 2021 (experts were very meticulous, with over 60 comments from 2 reviewers);
Manuscript requires correction on June 21, 2021;
Approved on July 1, 2021;
Published online on September 21, 2021.

(1) 讚！ | 阿隆

How long does it take to receive the proof after receiving it?

(0) 讚！ | qweqw

I would like to ask where can I find the template for the journal.

(0) 讚！ | 不敢不敢

I submitted the manuscript in mid-October. It was under review one day later. Review comments were received in mid-November. It took over 40 days, which was considered very fast among my submitted manuscripts. Two reviewers, one with 10 comments and the other with 30 comments, all recommended major revision, and the opinions were very pertinent. The editor finally recommended major revision, requesting revised submission at the end of the year. After half a month of revision, the revised manuscript was submitted. Then revisions were made several times because of format problems, all of which was requested by the editor. The manuscript submitted in early December was accepted ten days after Under Review. The efficiency of the journal editor was very high, and he was very responsible. It was still in Q3 when submitting, and it was found to fall to Q4 at the end of the year. I don’t know why.

(2) 讚！ | 不只是涛涛

2017-5-31 contribution, the first trial at the end of AugustBack, 3 months, 2 reviewers, overhaul, opinions are very detailed, super-multiple, given the 1.5-month revision, the first trial in October, the second trial lasted 2 months, the 12th second trial, and a reviewPeople, one reviewer in the first trial was very dissatisfied with the revision, and the other two were satisfied. The editor's opinion was to continue to modify. After half a month of repairing, he returned for one month and accepted it at the end of February 2018.The overall feeling: editors and reviewers are still very responsible, very rigorous, have requirements for the quality of manuscripts, but the speed of review is really not complimented

(1) 讚！ | yanglun_2016shzu@163.com

2017-5-31Submission, first review at the end of August, 3 months, 2 reviewers, overhaul, opinions are very detailed, super, given 1.5 months revision, first review in OctoberBack, the second trial lasted for 2 months, and the second trial was returned at the end of the 12th. A reviewer was added. One reviewer in the first trial was very dissatisfied with the revision. The other two were satisfied. The editor’s opinion was to continue to modify and repair for half a month.The second repair returned and waited for one month and accepted it at the end of February 2018.The overall feeling: editors and reviewers are still very responsible, very rigorous, have requirements for the quality of manuscripts, but for the speed of reviewing the man is not dare to compliment

(0) 讚！ | yanglun_2016shzu@163.com

Submitted on April 1, 2017, sent out to review within one week, and comments came back within 3 months. The comments were between minor revision and major revision. The three reviewers gave many comments, but they were all pertinent. The editor also had comments with a special emphasis on language readability, sufficiency in literature review and highlighting the novelty in writing. The editor gave us 1.5 months, and I completed the revision in 1 month. The second round of review took nearly two months. Finally, all the reviewers were satisfied with the revision and suggested acceptance. But the editor asked us to find a native speaker to improve the language and gave us 10 days. I revised it myself and resubmitted after 7 days. However, the editor was not satisfied, gave me 2 weeks  to find a foreign researcher in the same field to revise the paper, and threatened to reject the manuscript if was again not satisfied with the revision. I therefore had to contact several friends who were studying in foreign countries and an American doctoral student to help revise the paper. I resubmitted after 2 weeks and got accepted the next day. It took nearly seven and a half months from submission to acceptance, and it was revised three times. Really exhausting. I feel that this journal is quite rigorous, pays attention to the details of the manuscript, and has a high standard for language. I have read other papers published in this journal and feel the quality is uneven, so it is not easy to say how difficult it is to get accepted here. Moreover, the journal mainly publishes papers in energy, power and machinery, so the review cycle for electronics may be long.

(1) 讚！ | 573960221@qq.com

The results of the review for one month were revised two or three times. The editors and reviewers were very careful. The Japanese journals were very rigorous. Finally, the editors helped to change the language.However, due to the speed of its own modification, it was only published five months after the submission.The processing speed varies from article to article. If the reviewer is fast, the article will be fast. If you can't find a suitable reviewer, slow down the

(0) 讚！ | Volara

for myI selectd for 2 months, or with the editor, the idea of ​​retracting has been, I feel that the journal is biased towards the direction of the equipment, the building environment simulation is not good.

(1) 讚！ | tju

Solar power generation The article on the construction environment has been submitted for 6 months, or under review. After graduation, I can't afford to hurt. The review cycle is due to the article. I urgently need the cautious select of the article.

(3) 讚！ | seun

Energy and building energy saving direction, air source heat pump water heater to make domestic hot water.The impact factor is low, but the journal is more responsible, as long as there is real content that can be drafted.

(2) 讚！ | njustlsl803@163.com

The reviewer is very responsible, the opinion is very good.

(1) 讚！ | 123

first sci paper

(3) 讚！ | lio