Ten days after submission, I received the review comments. There were four reviewers in total; one major revision, two minor revisions were required, and one rejection was received. The fourth reviewer made very demanding comments and insisted that we should supplement the experimental data that even a top journal would not require, and rejected the manuscript on the grounds of lack of innovation. After more than ten days of conscientiously supplementing the experiment, it was resubmitted, and the fourth reviewer’s concerns were especially explained in detail. More than ten days later, the review comments were received, and it was still the original four reviewers. There were three review comments returned. Because we seriously responded to the reviewers' comments, two reviewers agreed to accept it, but the fourth reviewer insisted on rejecting the manuscript because we did not add the experimental data he wanted. The editor finally adopted the fourth reviewer's opinion, although the rest of the reviewers agreed to accept it, and unfortunately, it was ultimately rejected. I am still quite disappointed, because the unreasonable request of the fourth reviewer was accepted by the editor and eventually led to rejection.

(8) Thank | 小白李小博

The following is some submission experience about Electrochemistry Communications, which is for reference only. (1) The editing process was fast. Generally, a manuscript will be reviewed within a week. If the manuscript processing time was too long, the editor will not wait and send existing comments to the author. (2) The editor will carefully review each manuscript, and reject the manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements. But as long as the manuscript is sufficiently innovative, the editor will give relevant comments. In addition, the editor was also a reviewer. The editor's comments often combined the comments of other reviewers, such as citing literature, comparative experiments, opinion elaboration, sentence modification, adding appropriate data to support the controversial arguments in the text. These comments are very useful. (3) Be humble and cautious when responding to reviewers’ questions. However, it is important to make your point clear. Answer as few questions as possible, not too many. If the response is too long, the manuscript may be returned. (4) The article needs to be rigorous. Each sentence must have a basis. And appropriate references must be cited. (5) The introduction is very important. The reviewer will evaluate the innovation of the article from the introduction. (6) The emergency notice is the basis for the editor to evaluate the article, and the innovation of the article should be reflected in the emergency notice.

(3) Thank | Harry

Language requirements are high. Pay particular attention to all formatting requirements. 3 reviewers.

(4) Thank | Anonymous

I also need the same situation, may I ask how long I need to wait?

(0) Thank | lgd13

May I ask where can I see the status of the manuscript?

(0) Thank | Cherise

Can't you see the submission status in the corresponding author column? There is also no article information in the co-author's account. I submitted it on 2-28, but until today, there is no result, and I don't know what the status is.

(0) Thank | Cherise

May I ask how much it costs approximately?

(1) Thank | 李沫

Hello, the article was submitted by the advisor, and I am the first author. How can I see the status of the submission?

(0) Thank | 自由

Excuse me, do we now need to pay a publication fee for this journal?

(0) Thank | 123

Do you need to provide the original data?

(0) Thank | pipipi-

Can co-authors view the submission status, please?

(0) Thank | 子沫

Every author will receive emails.

(0) Thank | 昆工科研硕

Will every author receive an email after submitting their contribution?

(0) Thank | 子沫

EC is known for its fast speed. It has been two days since I submitted it, but it has not been edited yet. Is this normal?

(0) Thank | star化工

Wishing the journal to continue to improve and return to the top.

(0) Thank | 昆工科研硕

Fast speed, the editor also gave me language polishing, very thoughtful.

(9) Thank | 昆工科研硕

submission less than 6 hours.After the revision, I will select again. After two weeks, I will give comments on the review. After replying to the comments, I will wait for a week to receive

(0) Thank | 南城百货

The journal is good, the editor in charge of energy direction in Canada is very responsible and more careful!(So ​​for content and language, it is recommended to first enrich, authentic point).I don't know a lot of things because of the novice, and the language process is more time consuming, but the real reply review comments take less than two weeks, which is quite fast.

(1) Thank | wwenf91@163.com

classic journals in the field of electrochemistry.The review was quick, and the two rounds of review were returned in about 5 days. At present, the rejection rate is ~85%.2017.12.3 Instant IF=4.0, as always, stable.The review is very strict and the editor-in-chief will personally participate in the review.

(1) Thank | Nat. Energy

Reviewer: A major repair, a minor repair, a medium repair.Edit the manuscript.

(1) Thank | 58911112@qq.com

dragged the article for a long time, finally submitted it on the EC, and returned 5 days after the select;Both reviewers agreed to publish immediately, and one proposed adding experimental details;Received the next day after the modification, Shen speed

(4) Thank | egbert

The review speed is very fast.Half a month after the trial, it was a tragedy.Two review comments, editors rejected the draft.The requirement is still high.

(0) Thank | 王

was submitted on the EC on September 22nd. The next day, the editor wrote back that the urgency criterion is not met, and said that the change of the text is more appropriate, and was directly rejected by the editor.Then, on September 26th, the short communication of the journal of power sources was changed. On October 22nd, minor repairs were made. The experiment and language were not modified. Only a few reviewers' articles were asked.

(3) Thank | Anonymous

was not published as the first author, and the third author published a review speed really fast as follows: Received 10.01.06Revised10.02.17Acceped 10.02.23On Line 10.03.01Publish 10.05.03 Feel as long as the work is novel, but must be very novel

(1) Thank | Anonymous

5.30 submitted 6.6 first minor repair (one pass, two minor repairs)6.9 submitted 6.24 second minor repair (another pass, a minor repair) 6.27 select 7.3 receiving the overall calculation is very fast.The new requirements of the article are very high. It is best that the previous ones have not done it. The experiments such as improvement suggest that the journals should be selectd for. Of course, you can try the test. Some of the comments are good, and it will not waste time to recover.

(1) Thank | Anonymous