January 31, 2019: Submission. February 2, 2019: Technical Modification. February 13, 2019: Submit to the journal. February 14, 2019: With editor. February 17, 2019: Under review. March 7, 2019: Under review (status data). March 28, 2019: Under editor's evaluation. March 29, 2019: Decision in process. March 30, 2019: Major revision (30-day period). April 27, 2019: Resubmission to the journal. April 27, 2019: With editor. May 3, 2019: Under review. May 8, 2019: Required reviews. May 13, 2019: Decision in process. May 13, 2019: Accept. The quality of the revised article has been greatly improved. I finally waited for the results today, and I have more confidence in my future scientific research, and the pressure of doctoral graduation is much less than before. Thanks to Stefano Passerini, the editor-in-chief, and the reviewers, and thanks to my girlfriend for her continuous care and love.

(30) Thank | Louis_liu

February 25, 2019, submitted to journal. February 28, 2019, with editor. March 1, 2019, under review. March 9, 2019, under editor evaluation. March 12, 2019, reject but suggest resubmit. Two reviewers, the first reviewer suggested major revision, but the second one rejected the manuscript incomprehensibly. April 11, 2019, resubmitted. April 13, 2019, with editor. April 16, 2019, under review. April 19, 2019, under editor evaluation. April 22, 2019, under editor evaluation. April 24, 2019, under editor evaluation. April 24, minor revise. There were four reviewers, the first reviewer suggested direct acceptance, and the other three reviewers suggested minor revision. On May 4, revision submitted. On May 6, with editor. On May 07, under review. On May 07, required reviews completed. On May 08, accept.

(3) Thank | daiviee

The editor and reviewers are very friendly. It is my first accepted paper. I am graceful. It took 4 months from submission to acceptance. With editor lasted one month. I guessed he was looking for the reviewers. It took one month for making the decisions for the first review. I was given one month to make major revision and supplement the experiments. I revised it for one month. It was reviewed for another month after submission, and then accepted. The following is the whole process, for your information. I submitted on September 30, 2018. The result returned on October 2, 2018, technical revision; I revised and resubmitted it on the same day. It was with editor on November 3, 2018, under review on November 6, 2018, and under editor evaluation on November 26, 2018. The result of first review came out on December 4, 2018, major revision, it was just one month. Revision submitted to the journal on December 29, 2018. It was sent back on December 31, 2018, and the editor asked to revise the highlights. Revision submitted to journal on December 31, 2018. It was under review on January 2, 2019. Required reviews completed on January 30, 2019. The decision of acceptance was made on February 2, 2019.

(148) Thank | SCUTWG

The cycle difference is really big. Our laboratory has submitted papers for the journal three times. One paper was accepted but two were rejected. I was told by other researchers that their review comments were returned very quickly, and there would be opinions in a month or so; however, the response was very slow in my experience. Indeed, as everyone said, the reviewers raised the issue of language. They recommended that I  find a native speaker. JPS is very fond of dyeing sensitized solar cells and quantum dot sensitized solar cells.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Yes, I've been at RRC for a month already, the editor didn't even bother to take a look, quite speechless.

(0) Thank | 腼腆的猴哥

I'm really fed up! How can the review process of this journal be so slow? I submitted my manuscript in October last year, and now the results of the second revision are still not out. It's been half a year already, how can the efficiency of the editor be so low? And this year it even dropped to the third tier... I'm speechless...

(0) Thank | 打工森

Peer review is a process in which experts in a particular field evaluate and provide feedback on a scholarly work before it is published or accepted for publication.

(0) Thank | CSH8

3.24 has been submitted.

(0) Thank | CSH8

Damn it, is it competition among peers? The newly published journal "Energy Storage" next to us, suspected of criticism and belittlement.

(0) Thank | ms_liujie

Sep 22, 2024 submitted to journal
Oct 5, 2024 minor revision
Oct 6, 2024 revised
Oct 10, 2024 accepted
Oct 16, 2024 available online

After numerous rejections from several journals, I finally submitted to JPS. After making significant revisions, there were a total of over ten comments from two reviewers, which were relatively easy to address. The article was published in less than a month, marking the fastest submission process I have experienced.

JPS was originally well-regarded in the field of battery safety, with many key articles being published there. However, it is disheartening to see that in the new classification system introduced in 2025, the journal has dropped from being a top tier 2 journal to a lower tier 3 category.

(0) Thank | XXX-D

The stepmother forced me to change my last name.

(0) Thank | ttttttt

Two experiences: In the second review, three reviewers left and three more were added. One of the three reviewers who left in the third review came back and rejected it, and the editor referred to this opinion and rejected it.

In the first review, both reviewers gave positive feedback, and the revised version was accepted. The editor directly rejected the manuscript. What's the point of sending it for review if you're not going to consider the reviewers' opinions? Now people are constantly switching to open-source journals they've never heard of, like NEXT.

(0) Thank | 小学渣

It is suggested to avoid pitfalls. The submission was made in March 2024, and the first round of major revisions involved six reviewers who provided dozens of comments. In the second round, several new reviewers were consulted, and the manuscript went through a total of three rounds of revisions before being accepted in January 2025. This is just the way CNS operates, and it's no wonder it fell into the third quartile.

(0) Thank | showrman

I can't believe the Chinese Academy of Sciences has downgraded me to the third tier. I really want to curse.

(1) Thank | liu-accepted

Please stop submitting and withdraw the manuscript to change to another journal. It is no longer in the top tier of the third district and the review process is slow.

(0) Thank | hiiigfigagfaf

Gu Ning, the power is divided into the materials, and then lowered to three zones, are you tired of playing?

(0) Thank | 科研小菜鸡儿

What happened? Just got hired and now the job location has changed.

(1) Thank | 柱柱柱柱柱！！

Last week, Cui Ying covered the customer service, and just returned from repair this week, without waiting for the opinion of the third reviewer. Major repairs, need to be sent out!!

(0) Thank | SCIee

Has the Journal Citation Reports for 2025 been released?

(0) Thank | asdasdaw

Talent...Assigned JPS to the materials category.

(1) Thank | 再拒我就打爆你

In 2025, the Chinese Academy of Sciences divided into 3 zones, which is really absurd. How could a well-established energy journal be categorized like this?

(0) Thank | AlenFang

3.12倾角
3.18倾角

(0) Thank | 白云苍狗J

It has been over a month. Have you chased for the manuscript, my friend?

(0) Thank | kaiweizhou

02.27 rrc
03.11 rrc

(0) Thank | 白云苍狗J

Hey guys, we have 3 reviewers for the paper, and two of them have already submitted their feedback. The third reviewer has been reviewing for 48 days and still hasn't responded. We have been waiting for him. Should we follow up with him?

(0) Thank | SCIee