2020.1.22 submit, editor invited for a week, with editor for 10 days, under review for more than 20 days; 2020.3.3 required reviews completed. I received review comments on the same day, a rejection and a major revision. The reason for rejection was that the research content was not in the scope of the journal, the editor required a major revision, and offered an invitation to design a cover image; 2020.3.21 revised submission. Editor invited lasted for one day, and with editor lasted for more than ten days. This step was too slow and under review lasted for half a month; 2020.4.21 it was accepted with no further modification. The work didn’t belong to the mainstream direction of Nano Energy and it is was a bit biased toward devices. But the first article of the series work submitted to Nano Energy was also sent for review. He rejected the manuscript because a reviewer said that the innovation was insufficient. In fact, the innovation was not bad. The reviewers didn’t understand that it was we who started such research first. This time this manuscript was a continuation of the previous work, and it was successfully sent for review. Thank the editor Sang-Woo Kim for sending for review both times.

(11) Thank | 遮月

The heat of energy is rising rapidly. This year, the impact factor (IF) of Nature Energy is over 50; IF of Energy Environment Science is over 30; IF of Nano Energy is over 15. The new journal Joule and ACS Energy Letter also refused to admit being inferior, the IF was relatively stable. Some top journals even have a weakening trend. It can be seem that if the same level of research was published on energy-related journals, it will be more advantageous. There is a view that the impact factor of the energy-related journals is falsely high, but the high impact factor is the guarantee of journal survival, and the higher IF is, the better source of manuscript is. The manuscript was submitted on May 27. The review comments came back on July 11; there were two major revisions. The second review comments came back on August 7; one reviewer required minor revision, and the other one accepted it. It was accepted on August 27. According to reviewer 1, the mechanism was not clear enough, and two additional experiments were required. Although I thought those two experiments were unnecessary, I still supplement one of them, and the result proved that the experiment was really unnecessary. Another experiment was not easy to do, so theoretical analysis was carried out to prove that it was unnecessary to supplement. Review 2 was not very clear about this (research) direction, and thought that there were a lot of problems in the research method, and required more detailed discussion. To this end, the error test and detailed description were supplemented.

(22) Thank | 鬼道之末法红莲

My review article in the field of self-powered sensor based on the fuel cell was submitted. It took a long time. And you could take my experience as a reference. 2018.11.29 Submission; 2019.1.19 Rejection (Three reviewers, one required a minor revision for manuscript, one rejected the manuscript as a result of misreading our research direction); 2019.2.3 Appeals, argue, appealed manuscripts and revision submitted; 2019.2.27 It was accepted by one reviewer and rejected by the other one. And the editor requested a major revision. 2019.3.13 Revised submission (I have tried my best to revise it). 2019.4.4 The reviewer who rejected the manuscript last time still rejected the manuscript and he thought that our manuscript was still not innovative. 2019.4.12 Revised submission (I was almost freaking out and I had not slept for a few days...) 2019.4.15 Conditional acceptance, a minor revision needed to be made. The revised draft was submitted in the afternoon and accepted at night. I thought that the review was really strict as I encountered a reviewer who was comparatively difficult. Fortunately, the editor was really nice. Thank you! The experience that manuscript submitted seriously harmed and weakened me. Fortunately, the ending was good. I think I still have to dare to try. At the beginning, I also had the thought of trying. If it is not going to be accepted, I could just transfer my article. After unremitting efforts, it was accepted. The manuscript attached: doi: 10.1016/j.nanoen.2019.04.056. If you are in the similar research filed, you could email me if you have any questions. I will try to help everyone, cyxxsm@163.com

(42) Thank | 平安树的小树苗

Submitted to Nano Energy on September 21; Received a reply on October 10, minor revision; Submitted the revised revision on October 23; Conditional acceptance on November 4, as the third reviewer had 3 minor questions to be answered; formally accepted on November 8. In general, we were lucky that no comments were overly critical. Doing the experiment was laborious, but the submission process went smoothly!

(2) Thank | Shasha

2.20投 - Invest on February 20th
3.17修改 - Modify on March 17th
4.10接收 - Receive on April 10th
Keep going, and go with the flow.

(0) Thank | 大张伟

It's been over three weeks since I submitted my article, but it's still being edited and there is no rejection yet. It's just a waste of time.

(0) Thank | 比Zn

Seems like the small-minded person who tried to climb high but failed is now taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.

(0) Thank | 本多

Is it because the people who deal with materials play by themselves, and that's why others can't get in? Haha, the materials have already permeated our traditional journals, the figures are very beautiful, all just testing, no theoretical innovation, this is punishment.

(0) Thank | Mr.thermal

Many average-level papers and papers from connections have been downgraded to the second tier, which is a joy to see! Celebrate together!

(4) Thank | xuweixuwei

In the above mediocre articles, many papers from related parties are included, which are downgraded to the second tier. It is pleasing to see! Celebrate together!

(0) Thank | xuweixuwei

I really cried. Although it is true that the nanogenerator is a bit lacking, the cost is low. It requires some innovation to be applied well. I think it is not bad. This journal does not have strict requirements for submission, anyone can submit. Now it has become a second-tier journal. I really cried.

(3) Thank | jingquan

I don't understand the logic behind partitioning. In the future, open source and domestic products will dominate.

(1) Thank | 岁月无恒

How is it possible to lower the impact factor when it is so high?

(0) Thank | 投稿0358

Reduced to the second division, I didn't expect it. The magazine has been discontinued, brothers.

(1) Thank | 凉墨

The returned product is under review. The response letter is 56 pages long. It's challenging to see it divided into two sections. It's interesting to see some company-operated open-access journals directly entering the first tier.

(1) Thank | Victor_Zhang

Give Big Zhang Wei a hug.

(0) Thank | 小董亡命天涯

Manma Jia 1, just finished writing a reply letter of nearly 50 pages yesterday.

(0) Thank | SCI 不分区

The domestic open-source familiar talent recruitment journal is still in Zone 1, but it has dropped to Zone 2. Where is the justice in this?

(0) Thank | 岁月无恒

I received both the editing suggestions and the dropped messages at the same time, and I am overwhelmed.

(0) Thank | 大张伟

With a new editor-in-chief, it may be difficult to return to the first district if IF does not increase significantly in the future, as there are more and more high-IF journals in the second district.

(1) Thank | letpub_2020

What a pity.

(0) Thank | 11111_10

Not bad, this journal has been ranked in the 2nd tier of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. How should we evaluate this?

(0) Thank | Mikcyhyl

The editing has been sitting in the editor's hands for a month, which is a bit too slow.

(0) Thank | 求投稿顺利

Submitted on 15th January 2025
Under review on 19th January 2025
There was a long wait for the review comments during the Chinese New Year break
Revised on 8th February 2025 based on feedback from three reviewers
Revision submitted to journal on 2nd March 2025
Review completed on 8th March 2025
Accepted on 9th March 2025

(0) Thank | 晨风与暮光

Why are you so slow? I received an email the day after I submitted it, saying that the classification needed to be changed and the highlights needed to be shortened.

(0) Thank | 大张伟