Direction of photocatalytic CO2 reduction. It was firstly submitted to Angew, and both reviewers required major revisions (rating: one 15%, and one 50%). It was rejected in the second review because the key data could not be completed. After nearly a year, I filled up the data requested by the reviewers and resubmitted it to Angew, and the editor rejected it directly. Then we attached the review comments from Angew and submitted it to ChemSusChem. It was sent for review the next day, and the review comments returned after ten days. Two reviewers (rating: one 5%, and one 15%) each asked five or six questions, requesting additional data. The revised manuscript was submitted 12 days later, and it was accepted and online after 3 days. It took 25 days from submission to acceptance, which was extremely efficient.

(15) Thank | Trump.Ray

I also specially registered an account here to make a comment just like others did in previous post! I did a part of the research work in the first half of the year and found it was very meaningful. I submitted the manuscript to several journals with IF up to 10 but it was rejected by all of them. I didn’t want to postpone the assessment, so I submitted it to this journal under the advice of a foreign advisor. Below was the basic process: 12.02 submit to journal; 12.03 under review; 12.10 revisions; 12.23 submit revised; 12.27 accepted; 12.29 online. The evaluation was good, the opinions were pertinent, and the review speed was super fast. I like this journal! If there is a chance inn future, I will continue to consider to submit this journal! Work hard together!

(5) Thank | 一只想变成猪的科研狗

The manuscript was processed very quickly. It took about 20 days from submission to the return of first review comments. One major revision and two minor revisions. The reviewer, who recommended major revision, made about 15 pertinent comments that helped to improve the level of the article indeed, and I also learned something. I would like to thank the responsible reviewer. The revised manuscript was returned a week later, the second review took about 5 days and the manuscript was accepted directly. After the notification to upload the PDF file, it was published online the next day. The previous goal was too high, and it was rejected by both ACS Nano and AFM. I couldn't wait to submit to this journal because I was about to graduate. Generally speaking, I am quite satisfied with this submission. With impact factor of 7.8 and high recognition, it is a Q1 journal steadily in chemistry field.

(0) Thank | 一块好砖

I have to say that this journal is really efficient. 2017.12.30, submitted; 2017.12.31, Return request for supplemental stability data. 2018.1.3, Returned the paper after supplementation. 2018.1.4, paper has been submitted for review. 2018.1.29, Received the review comments, two reviewers, one immediately accepted, one asked for a minor revision, the editor favored direct acceptance, but the reviewers' opinions prevailed and they asked me to add an experiment. 2018.2.7, Returned the modified manuscript. 2018.2.8, manuscript accepted online. In general, the review process is relatively smooth, but the journal emphasizes articles with new ideas and data. Often, an article may have to be modified many times to have the final good result. I hope that this journal will get better and better. IF over 8.

(3) Thank | tiger C

Update 3.10 has been received.

(0) Thank | ZZQAQ

When were you hired?

(0) Thank | LGY

2024.12.07 sub
2024.12.14 WE on the same day UR
2025.01.02 Three REs, 1 and 2 minor revisions, 3 rejection, editor TP
2025.01.14 Appeal and resubmission
2025.01.21 WE
2025.01.26 UR
2025.02.19 Major Revision (1 and 2 agreed, 3 additional experiments needed, editor major revision

(0) Thank | ZZQAQ

How long does it take for the status to change? Have you been hired?

(0) Thank | LGY

Has there been any changes in the situation?

(0) Thank | LGY

Has there been any change in the status since then?

(0) Thank | LGY

May I ask on which day did the condition change?

(0) Thank | LGY

May I ask which step the article is currently at?

(0) Thank | Marschen

May I ask at which step are we currently at?

(0) Thank | Marschen

It has been 14 days since submission, this is the slowest journal I have ever seen.

(0) Thank | WZS123

7.12 submit
7.20 With Editor
9.29 major revision (one 5%, one 50%, conflicting opinions, arbitration)
10.22 revise
10.29 major revision 
11.3 revise
11.15 Accept (reviewer1 is really difficult). Thanks to Dr. Halgard Staesche for editing.

(0) Thank | Redorm

10.11 submitted
No updates in ten days.

(0) Thank | StaRingQAQ

1.30 transfer to CSSC
2.27 rejection and resubmission
3.28 minor revision
4.5 accepted
4.27 proofreading

(0) Thank | ppc1973

Please translate the following paragraph into English: August 1st accept

(0) Thank | 锅子66

May 25 submitted
June 5 under review
July 11 major revision with 4 reviewers, given 15 days
July 18 revision
...waiting for the outcome

(0) Thank | 锅子66

My week and some.

(0) Thank | 行行行好好好对对对

The submission made at the end of March is still under external review, and it has been almost three months. Can we follow up on it?

(0) Thank | Accept接接接

May 22, 2024, Submitted
One week has passed, still in the same status.
This journal is really slow. It's the slowest among all the journals I have submitted to

(0) Thank | 灌水流大师兄

Quickly, within two weeks, they were rejected directly and were told they could transfer to the third district

(0) Thank | ppb

Looking forward to returning to Area One soon

(0) Thank | Photo-light

In the past few years, this journal used to be quite fast, with reviews typically being completed within 2-3 days. However, starting this year, it feels like the process has been slowing down, taking about two weeks to get through to review (around one week in Submitted status, and then another week in with editor status). Nevertheless, with the easier search for reviewers, reviews can generally be completed within a month. Hope it gets better and better!

(0) Thank | leafarc