Regarding the 102-time self-cited article, the journal actually has a special reply: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/0khtfc5udn4jv_mveaqsiw. Specifically, it is an editorial, not a research paper. In the special issue it plays the role of "introduction". Since it is an "introduction", there is no problem in citing a paper commenting on the journal a large number of times. Moreover, JCLP also claimed that this kind of paper, in the previous calculation method, was not included in the citation times of impact factor, but this year somehow it is included by JCR. Therefore, JCLP is really taken for a ride this time. In addition, I used to review the manuscripts for this journal, and the acceptance criteria was still very high. The two recently reviewed papers both were recommended rejections due to lack of innovation. Judging from the number of manuscripts, the number of manuscripts in June has exceeded 10,000, and the total number of submissions per year exceeds 20,000, and more than 4,000 manuscripts are accepted each year, thus the acceptance rate is less than 20%. Therefore, whether the publication is not watery, everyone should know that. Those who do not like the publication need not verbally criticize it. Give an opportunity to those who like the publication. You can submit to the publication you like. Just get what you want. _________This is JCP's response. Did ASS respond? ?

(21) Thank | zhaoaixi

2019.11.29 Submitted to Applied Surface Science; 2019.12.01 The editor directly rejected it. 2019.12.02 Submitted to Computational Materials Science, and it was under review after a week. 2019.12.29 The resubmitted manuscript was rejected. Two reviewers gave some suggestions, one with more (very appropriate) and one with less. After careful revision, the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved. 2020.02.19 Submitted to Applied Surface Science, and the status changed from submitted to journal to under review on the same day. In the middle, because two of the three reviewers invited did not review the manuscript, another three reviewers were invited. 2020.04.04 major revision was required, the first two reviewers’ problems were quite few, but a lot more for the latter reviewer; 2020.04.29 revision submitted to journal; 2020.04.30 under review; 2020.05.03 required reviews completed; 2020.05.05 accept! I am very grateful to the editors and reviewers. The journal process is very fast and the reviewers are very professional and careful.

(1) Thank | Barfi

12/21 submitted; 12/25 under review; 01/09 under editor evaluation; 01/12 under editor evaluation; 01/14 major revision; 02/04 with editor; 02/11 under review; 02/14 required reviews completed; 02/24 accepted. Generally speaking, it is very fast. It took half a month for the first review, with 2 reviewers, requiring one major revision with 5 questions, and one minor revision with 4 small questions. I answered every comment seriously, and it was sent to two reviewers for the second review, and I was pleasantly surprised that they reviewed it quickly and all were satisfied. The quality of the article improved greatly after the revision. After required reviews completed, it has been with editor for 10 days. If your paper has been in this state for a long time, don't be too anxious. In fact, if you have returned the review comments seriously, there would be no big problems. Good luck, everyone! Wish the journal develops better and better!

(17) Thank | -Lei-

2019.10.31 submitted; 11.1 editor handles; 11.18 one reviewer; 12.9 three reviewers; 12.10 one reviewer; 12.10 required reviews completed; 12.11 one reviewer; 12.23 required reviews completed; 12.31 required reviews completed; 2020.1.6 required reviews completed; 1.8 major revision (five reviewers); 1.27 revision submitted; 1.28 editor handles; 2.4 one reviewer; 2.12 one reviewer; 2.12 required reviews completed; 2.13 one reviewer; 2.13 required reviews completed; 2.13 Decision in Process; 2.13 accepted.

(13) Thank | GuoGuo

Sep 26, 2019 submitted to journal; Oct 28, 2019 major revision; Dec 1, 2019 revised to journal; Dec 23, 2019 minor revision; Dec 23, 2019 revised to journal; Dec 31, 2019 with editor; Jan 4, 2020 accept. Two reviewers, who were very professional, gave a lot of profound review opinions and corrected many details, which was very helpful to the improvement of the paper. For the paper of less than 6000 words, the review comments were 2500 words. The editor gave two months of revision. I re-did part of the simulation, reprogrammed and extracted data based on the review comments. It took more than a month to complete the revisions It was majorly revised and can be considered equivalently rewriting it. 7500 words just were responded to the reviewer’s comments. There was a long time of waiting and I was anxious. The minor revision was requested because the two symbols were misplaced. The reviewer pointed it out subtly and asked me to check and verify it. It was not a big problem, so I submitted the revised manuscript on the same day. Then it was the holidays for Christmas and New Year's Day, and I waited anxiously for a couple of days. Today I finally received the good news and I was very happy! The editor was very nice. The reviewer should be an expert in the field and his review opinions were professional and profound. Finally, I hope that the journal be better and better.

(4) Thank | 劳谦

Mar 07, 2019, submitted; Mar 09, 2019, under review, Apr 10, 2019, Major review, Apr 20, 2019, revision submitted to journal； Apr 23, 2019, with editor; Apr 25, 2019, under review; Apr 28, 2019, Accept. The editor is Jennifer Strunk, whose efficiency is quite high. Two reviewers, one is an expert with a same major, the other is a peer in the field. All comments were very professional, and the revision was submitted within 10 days with supplementary experiments done. We carefully answered the reviewers’ questions and cited the articles they recommended (Actually, if they just wanted us to cite more of their own articles? Ha ha). A few days later, the reviewers recommended to accept it. I read the posts here, and everyone seems to consider it an unqualified journal. But judging from the review comments, there are more professional comments received here in JHM that I submitted to before, where the reviewers seemed not to understand the content at all. A lot of energy was spent on the revisions, so it is relatively smooth. I wish you all good luck~

(13) Thank | Known Nothing

I didn’t have a great experience with this journal, unfortunately. After submission, my manuscript was with the editor for two weeks and then was immediately rejected. The editor claimed that our manuscript had been sent out for review; however, in reality, the editor never found any reviewers for our paper. I know this because I received a reminder email indicating that it had been too long for this manuscript to be sent out for review. Even though I had a poor experience with this journal, ASS is a good journal. I recommend being cautious if you decide to submit.

(3) Thank | czfire

Indeed, blue thin.

(0) Thank | Minmin Qie

How did ASS become the TOP now?

(0) Thank | 打工人一号

The editor is responsible, everything is going smoothly.
Received at Editorial Office: 18 Jan 2025
Article revised: 17 Mar 2025
Article accepted for publication: 28 Mar 2025

(0) Thank | jyrau

Yes, I submitted the entire process, and it seems that the other authors have not received any emails.

(0) Thank | Acarboner

3.6 Accept!
The results are good, the editor is responsible, and on average it takes about one to two weeks to process the manuscript. One reviewer takes two weeks to respond to comments each time, while the other reviewer is extremely efficient.

(0) Thank | Acarboner

Hey buddy, just checking in, have you heard back from the editor yet?

(0) Thank | 踏山河

It's not the same anymore. I feel really bad, I just found out last week.

(0) Thank | cicada

Not a top journal?

(1) Thank | 科研小菜鸡儿

We returned for rework of the second review, and have been "with editor" since the second of this month, it's been 15 days...

(0) Thank | jadeney

I don't know either. It was submitted with the teacher's email.

(0) Thank | 一蕟中

Which editor reviewed this?

(0) Thank | CL WA

Feb 21, 2025 submit
Feb 25, 2025 With Editor
Mar 09, 2025 With Editor (email confirmation sent)
It has been a long time with the editor.

(0) Thank | 一蕟中

Is it normal that it has been 6 days since submitting to the journal?

(0) Thank | hhll543

Feb 25, 2025 submit
Feb 28, 2025 With Editor
Mar 12, 2025 With Editor
Mar 13, rejected and transferred

(0) Thank | 材化路上漫步

The processing speed is okay, moderate. This editor does not strictly follow the opinions of reviewers. If he appreciates your research, he will allow you to make revisions even if the reviewers have many objections. However, if there are many theoretical calculations in the article, be careful, as he will find professional reviewers to ask a lot of questions, including but not limited to: Has your model been tested? Why not use D4 correction? And so on.

(0) Thank | 沅芷

It's okay, we have been working together with the editor for many days.

(0) Thank | jadeney

It has been six days since the second trial was sent back for editing, is it normal?

(0) Thank | 一只痛苦的小鱼

11.26 submitted
12.2 under review (2/2/7)
1.28 major revision (2 reviewers + editor's suggestions)
2.10 submitted revision
2.24 under review
3.5 minor revision (2 reviewers accepted for publication, editor provided five small suggestions)
3.6 submitted revision
To be continued.

(0) Thank | Acarboner