This journal is very friendly. I submitted a manuscript in September 2018. One reviewer’s opinion was not very good. The editor rejected the manuscript directly, but the editor asked me to revise it the next day because another reviewer felt that the content was innovative. It was then accepted directly after major revision. It took a total of 5 months because of Christmas and Spring Festival in between. In general, it was very fast.

(5) Thank | 像地瓜的土豆

Academic OneFile, ASFA, Astrophysics Data System(ADS), Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), ChemWeb, CSA/Proquest, Current Abstracts, Current Contents/Engineering, Computing and Technology, EBSCO, Ei Page One, EI-Compendex, Gale, Google Scholar, Inspec, Jo##idThe current IF of -sp##1274

(0) Thank | Anonymous

May I ask how long it took?

(0) Thank | niannian123

I have been waiting for two months already, but still no results. I am getting frustrated.

(0) Thank | yyyyysz

How long has your status been for, my invitations have been sent to seven reviewers, and so far five of them have provided their feedback. It has been almost forty days, and I am getting anxious.

(0) Thank | niannian123

Later, is it coming quickly?

(0) Thank | niannian123

In addition, reviewers often require citations to be included in articles, which is a common requirement for every journal. The phenomenon mentioned by the OP is quite unique in that citations are being requested from unrelated articles. Citations are not the decision of the editor-in-chief, but rather a request from the reviewers, which can be challenged during the revision process or through an appeal. In such situations, it is an opportunity to communicate more with the editor-in-chief and make appeals. While review comments are not publicly published, they will remain in the system. Trust that the editor-in-chief will handle the situation fairly, but patience is key, and the writing style of emails is also very important

(1) Thank | Npostgrad_new

Since starting my Ph.D. 10 years ago, I have been paying attention to the journal Applied Composite Materials. Back then, the impact factor of ACM was similar to that of the Journal of Composite Materials, and the difficulty of submission was also similar. I often receive review invitations from ACM and am quite familiar with this journal. From what the original poster mentioned, it is not difficult to see that the problem lies in the review process. Some papers are in relatively less researched areas, with fewer researchers or perhaps encountering the situation where reviewers are reluctant or delaying the review due to low probability events. The fact that it took the editor a month to send the paper for review likely indicates that the editor invited reviewers but they did not accept the invitation promptly. The fact that it took two months to receive reviews from two reviewers further confirms this. ACM usually requires reviewers to submit their comments within 21 days, and reminders are sent frequently until the deadline because they are automatically generated by the system. If the paper is resubmitted for review after revisions but reviews from two reviewers are not received, new reviewers will be sought. From the feedback provided, it is apparent that finding reviewers and obtaining reviews for this particular paper have been quite challenging, with slow responses from reviewers. If reviews from two reviewers are not received, the editor will continue to seek the next reviewer. Altogether, the review process appears to be quite unpredictable

(1) Thank | Npostgrad_new

The submission experience was quite poor. Specifically, it took the editor one month to send the article for review. After review, two months were spent on providing two sets of reviewer comments. One of the reviewers, a junior colleague, seemed to be intentionally nitpicking at minor issues. Despite this, after waiting for so long, I made the revisions according to the comments and submitted the revised manuscript. One month later, the editor provided comments from another reviewer, which included a request to cite two completely unrelated papers and vague feedback such as "the abstract is too broad" and "the discussion section should be more specific," as well as a suggestion to hire a copyediting company. I discovered that the main author and editor of the papers I was asked to cite share the same last name, which raised suspicions of potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the topics of these papers were completely unrelated to my research on composite materials and my request to cite content on battery chemistry. The behavior of this editor was quite unseemly, as they not only forced citations but also pushed for copyediting services. When I inquired whether the reviewer comments were based on the revised version of the manuscript or the original submission, the junior editor forwarded my email to Ms. Maria Kashtalyan, but I did not receive a response for two weeks. I ultimately emailed the junior editor directly to withdraw my submission. It was a waste of five months, but it led me to realize the questionable practices of this journal. This journal's practices are so questionable that I believe a warning might be necessary soon. Proceed with caution. I initially chose this journal hoping for a faster review process due to its lower prestige, but the experience turned out to be quite harrowing. I later submitted to a journal ranked in the top tier of JCR, and it was accepted after minor revisions

(0) Thank | alax

Hey buddy, does this journal no longer accept articles? Why is there no place to submit manuscripts on the submission website interface?

(0) Thank | 科研王

Is this journal no longer accepting submissions? Why isn't there a place to submit manuscripts on the submission website interface?

(0) Thank | 科研王

Is this journal no longer accepting submissions? Why is there no "Submit a Manuscript" option on the submission website? Does anyone know?

(0) Thank | 科研王

What happened in the end, mine also changed from editor invited to editor assigned, and then changed back to editor invited.

(0) Thank | lxj

Hello, may I ask if the rejection was directly given by the editor, or was it rejected after being reviewed by the reviewer who provided comments that did not align with the research direction?

(0) Thank | Boreas_Lee

3.14投 - Submitted on March 14th
3.16 editor assigned - Editor assigned on March 16th
3.30 under review - Currently being reviewed as of March 30th

(0) Thank | Boreas_Lee

After major repairs and returns, it took about one month to be hired, and it has been approximately five months since the first submission.

(0) Thank | yifei

01.05 under review

(0) Thank | yifei

12.26 Revised version submitted
12.28 Editor invited

(0) Thank | yifei

Received a rejection notice last night, the reason being that it did not align with the journal's research focus. Well, I guess it's my fault for taking two weeks to submit it, I was just being too indecisive.

(0) Thank | comaclc

12.8 The status has changed back to editor assigned.

(0) Thank | comaclc

Yesterday, the status changed to Editor Invited.

(0) Thank | comaclc

It has been over a week since submission, but the editor has still not been assigned.

(0) Thank | comaclc

2022.10.20 - Return to first-instance opinions, major revisions, numerous opinions, currently being adjusted.

(0) Thank | yifei

9.06 submitted
9.7 editor assigned
9.16 editor invited
9.17 under review

(0) Thank | yifei

Hello, may I ask what the reason is for not submitting the rejected manuscript for review?

(0) Thank | yifei