I have submitted 4 times and been rejected 4 times. In each time, the article was rejected for the reason that the number of articles received by the journal is small and the quality of the manuscript was too low. I later submitted to other journals like Small, Journal of Materials Chemistry A (JMCA), et al, and they were accepted. Indeed, receiving one or two hundred articles a year, this amount is not enough for the number of outstanding young people in China, of course it is difficult. I will never submit to this journal again in the future, and leave it to the insiders to play! I carefully read the articles in this journal. The average level of the articles is lower than Journal of Pharmacological Sciences. Although every journal has various valueless articles, it is objective and fair to say that there are too many in this journal. Ninety-nine percent of the articles are from well-known domestic 985 universities or foreign universities. Not an article from unfamous university is found, it is not excessive to be said that this journal is the rubbish bin for the articles from famous universities. Before 2020, many articles had obvious errors. Moreover, the editor-in-chief engages in administration, relations, and does not engage in scientific research, and this journal will be finished sooner or later. If you are not in the famous unit, or do not have an expert as the corresponding author, please don't waste time. I suggest you submit carefully!

(61) Thank | 科研民工9527

As a leading domestic journal, this journal has very high article quality, and it is of great significance to learn from. Half a month after submission, the review comments were received. I revised the article according to the comments of the reviewers, and it was accepted smoothly. The journal processes manuscripts very quickly and efficiently. The journal is currently on the rise, and there is definitely a lot to do in the future. Experts and scholars in related fields can submit articles to it.

(6) Thank | Jim1

Three weeks after submission, the review comments were received, the efficiency was very high. There were three reviewers in total, and the comments were pertinent. Some experiments were supplemented. After the revision of the review comments, the notice of acceptance was received quickly. The efficiency was very high. The quality of the articles in Nano-Micro-letters has risen a lot recently, and the impact factor of this year has also risen a lot. I hope that the influence of the journal will increase!

(3) Thank | Nolan

Not a good journal. Only publishes paper from people they know. Evaluation of paper is based on whether characterization is complete, so novelty is low. It has a high impact factor only because the number of papers published is kept low. If the volume of papers published goes up, the impact factor will definitely go down.

(6) Thank | manny

Encountered vicious competition among peers.

(0) Thank | 睿智先生

Hired after modification

(0) Thank | 卑微小王

The submission was made on December 3, 2024, and was rejected on December 30, 2024. Five reviewers provided feedback, three of which suggested minor revisions. The work was deemed interesting by the reviewers, but ultimately rejected by the editor. After making the revisions, the manuscript was resubmitted, but was rejected by the editor in March 2025.

(0) Thank | 江科大杨博士

Please also ask the original poster, how did things develop afterwards?

(0) Thank | 穷凶极恶

Is a journal with a 100% review ratio in Chemical Reviews also a garbage journal?

(0) Thank | 科研小瓦罐

After you finish your rating, will it show "under review" when you submit for approval?

(0) Thank | S.Tow

Can I ask, what is the status of your application? Mine has just entered the evaluation stage, is there a high chance of rejection?

(0) Thank | S.Tow

The processing speed is very fast, with a one-week review period, and feedback from the first round of review is returned within two weeks. All four reviewers are experts in the field, and the feedback is quickly accepted after it is received.

(0) Thank | 蝴蝶结和橡皮筋

Can't agree more. Trash journal.

(0) Thank | 匿名投稿

This is the same garbage as bioactive materials, both are niche journals, don't bother if no one cares.

(0) Thank | 匿名投稿

Please translate the following passage into English: 1

(0) Thank | SCI 不分区

The chief editor processes very quickly, which is commendable. Here is the submission timeline:
2025.1.11 awaiting editor processing
2025.1.15 awaiting reviewer selection
2025.1.17 awaiting reviewer assignment
2025.1.18 awaiting reviewer scores
2025.2.3 awaiting editor recommendation
2025.2.6 Rejected by three reviewers, two for minor revisions and one for rejection (reason given was lack of innovation, along with a few other minor issues, two of which were incorrect and two were common knowledge in the field). The chief editor ultimately decided to reject the submission. That same day, an appeal letter of 15 pages was written to the chief editor, but no response was received within a week (possibly due to us being an unknown small research group in China).

(0) Thank | SCI 不分区

Do you also say "nature" like this?

(0) Thank | 科研小瓦罐

Is the volume of articles published by EES high? Are foreign ones better, while domestic ones are worse?

(0) Thank | 科研小瓦罐

Submitted on October 20, 2024
Revised on November 19, 2024 (minor revisions from all three reviewers)
Returned for further revisions on December 5, 2024
Accepted on January 2, 2025
The submission process was not long, but the review process was relatively short, with reviewers providing feedback in about 10 days. The manuscript stayed with the editor for a longer period, possibly to control the publication volume. The article was initially rejected after being submitted to Angew, so the author decided to try a domestic journal. Hopefully, it will continue to improve!

(0) Thank | 米玉米233

26-Jul-2024 Submission
23-Sep-2024 Major revision
23-Oct-2024 Revise and resubmit
07-Nov-2024 Minor revision
18-Nov-2024 Revise and resubmit again
19-Nov-2024 Accepted
The initial review took two months, very slow, with a total of 30 comments from four reviewers.
One of the reviewers was still not satisfied after the resubmission, so a minor revision was requested.
The process from the second resubmission to acceptance was quick.
The first major revision exceeded the deadline, and the editor granted an extension. The second minor revision also exceeded the deadline, and the editor granted another extension. Thank you to the editor.

(0) Thank | 20241216

It seems like it's not a double-blind review, right? (Awkward)

(0) Thank | 酱两度

The small research group submitted this paper after submitting to AM, AFM, and ACS Nano. There were five reviewers in a double-blind review process, and they all requested revisions.

(0) Thank | 一眼倾城

This journal has a high impact factor, but the quality of the articles...is definitely much better than Nano Letters and ACS Nano, completely outclassing them.

(0) Thank | 已注销

May I ask how long the wait is?

(0) Thank | ~~byy

I wonder how great an article needs to be to be submitted for approval, haha

(0) Thank | 笨蛋水凝胶啊