First of all, the review speed of the journal is very fast. It was about 50 days from the second submission to the online publication. Awesome! Secondly, the reviewers’ opinions are very professional and quite meticulous. The quality of my manuscript in the first review was indeed very poor. It was rejected and encouraged to resubmit. After careful revision based on the reviewer’s comments, the quality of the article has indeed improved a lot. I personally thought that although it is an open access journal, the level is indeed as good as that of a Q3 journal, but it can’t be compared with the top Q3 journals. But I personally don’t like the layout of this journal very much. The final suggestion for you: if you hope that the results can be received quickly, you can submit to it without hesitation. The speed and quality of the journal equal to a Q3 journal. But you may submit to it as little as possible in future scientific research life.

(8) Thank | 2112

The first submission was in mid-December 2018, it was rejected in early January 2019, but three reviewers’ opinions were given and the editor encouraged us to resubmit. Since then, I was busy with graduation matters and CSC applications. In late May 2019, I revised the manuscript according to the review comments of previous reviewers and resubmitted it. The revision comments came back in late June, two reviewers gave minor revision and another one gave major revision, the editor required major revision but asked me to complete the revision in 10 days. I failed to return the comments in time as some things happened in the period. Two emails were sent to the editor to postpone replying to the manuscript. I submitted the revised manuscript and replied the questions in mid-July 2019. It was accepted on June 22 and published on June 25.

(2) Thank | 闻久

The speed is acceptable, not as fast as expected. The first review comments were given in about a month. Two reviewers, one reviewer was very positive, and the other one reviewed the manuscript very carefully, from content to punctuation, and then there are suggestions for the use of words. After a round of revisions, I feel that the paper has been improved a lot. The rejection rate of Minerals in MDPI is the highest among the all journals. According to the official statistics of the journal, the rejection rate is about 60%. It is not so easy to be accepted. The key point is that many articles are rejected by the editors at first and they are not sent for review at all. That the source of the manuscript is relatively sufficient.

(3) Thank | apopo

Our paper was rejected without review. Is the topic not within the scope of the journal? “We are writing to inform you that we will not be able to process your paper further. Papers sent for peer-review are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in scholarly journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research. We wish you every success if you choose to submit the paper elsewhere.”

(1) Thank | lawyerlj922713@163.com

The review speed is incredibly fast, and the reviewers are very responsible and meticulous in pointing out and correcting many language issues. A large probability of comprehensive analysis can be achieved by combining the content at the regional level, without requiring a large amount of data.

(1) Thank | Xiao_Hui

It took a total of 43 days from submission to publication. All three reviewers provided very constructive feedback, leading to two major revisions and one minor revision. After the minor revisions were submitted, the paper was accepted within 3 days and published on the 5th day. Besides the expensive page charges, there were no issues at all for a master's graduation.

(0) Thank | zxt0405

The review process is fast, with a total of 3 reviewers providing feedback within one month. One reviewer accepted the paper directly, one requested minor revisions, and one requested major revisions, which were then given by the editor. Upon resubmission, the second reviewer requested minor revisions before accepting the paper, while the third reviewer requested major revisions and additional content. After resubmission, the paper was accepted within 12 days and published online 2 days later. If the quality of the article meets the standards of a Q1 journal, it is considered quite good, although the open access fee is indeed high at 2400 CHF.

(1) Thank | 半岛微夏

Metallurgy waste is used as backfilling material.
Homepage: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals/special_issues/8812SC2884
Welcome to submit contributions.

(0) Thank | Esevil

The submission was made on March 23rd, and feedback from the initial review was received 21 days later. Three reviewers were invited, one of whom commented on the lack of innovation without providing specific feedback. The other two reviewers agreed to accept the submission and provided very constructive feedback. One reviewer in particular corrected errors in the discussion section, for which I am very grateful. The revised version was accepted 10 days later, for a total of 42 days, which is quite fast. The only drawback was the fee of CHF2400, but everything else was good!

(0) Thank | 柴可夫斯基

The editors and reviewers are very responsible and quite fast, but somewhat procrastinating. They won't send you an email unless you remind them of something

(0) Thank | 清冽的甘泉

How can I contact you to submit an article?

(0) Thank | LJH2530

I bought it today, and it has risen to 2400

(0) Thank | fangpi9@126.com

Special Issue "Advances in Pyrometallurgy of Minerals and Ores"
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals/special_issues/3Y3M3SHIW4
Welcome submissions

(0) Thank | 芥末葱蘸酱

Topic: Renewable Energies for Water Treatment and Reuse in Mining Industries
Homepage: https://www.mdpi.com/topics/2x4li2i0hw
Participating Journals: Energies, Membranes, Minerals, Toxics, Water
Submission deadline: June 30, 2024

Please consult me for any inquiries regarding journal submissions!

(0) Thank | imtangtang

Posted on January 12th, received the "minor revision acceptance" decision from the editor on January 23rd. This is my 6th first-author SCI publication, and the first time I submitted to an open-access journal. Because I needed to meet project targets, I was in a hurry to find a suitable journal. Unexpectedly, the editor and reviewers chosen by Minerals had such a low level of expertise, and their questions were not relevant. However, the journal is reputable and the processing speed is fast.

(22) Thank | Zou-Yu

At first, I rejected the major revision, but later I made some modifications and tried to submit it again. After further modifications, it was accepted. Overall, the reviewers of the journal provided constructive suggestions and were very responsible, which greatly helped improve the writing level. The whole process from submission to online publication took a total of 2-3 months.

(4) Thank | cuiliwei

It is already 1800 now.

(0) Thank | 赏金猎人

It's alright. After submission, there was a major revision period of 21 days, with 10 days given for modifications. I didn't feel like doing the revisions, so I procrastinated until the 9th day before starting, and it took me 4 days to complete them. I submitted in the afternoon, and the reviewer replied in the evening. The editor requested minor revisions and gave me 3 days to do so. The next afternoon, I submitted the revised manuscript, and it was accepted in the evening. The publication fee was 1400 Swiss francs, much higher than domestic journals.

(0) Thank | 清单

From submission to acceptance, it took over five months, and the two reviewers provided nearly 50 comments in total. After two rounds of revising the samples and experimental data, the paper was finally accepted. Being an open-access journal is not as simple as imagined, and the review process is not short either. The editors and reviewers are very strict in ensuring the quality of the articles, and the comments provided by the two reviewers were insightful and greatly contributed to the improvement of the paper's quality. I hope this journal will continue to improve.

(23) Thank | 尼古拉斯朱瑞

"Everyone, be vigilant when someone directly asks for WeChat contact, most likely it is a scammer."

(0) Thank | Zinstant

2022.1.27 Submission, reviewed on the same day
2022.2.17 Major revision
2022.2.20 Revised
2022.3.1 Minor revision
2022.3.3 Revised
2022.3.10 Accepted
The reviewers were all very professional, and their questions were targeted. I had to consult many references before replying, so it was not as easy as I imagined. The review process was not as fast as I expected.
During the major revision, I hadn't finished making the changes yet. The editorial department skipped the academic editor and directly messaged me, asking for the revised version as soon as possible, saying they were planning to publish it at the end of the month. It was quite confusing. However, even after the revision, I still had to wait for a long time, and it was not published at the end of the month.
I sent multiple reminders to the assistant editor during the process, and the assistant editor had a good attitude. Every time I reminded them, I quickly received a response.
I managed to graduate as planned, and everything went smoothly.

(2) Thank | Squarefei

10.30 submission
12.22 revision
1.10 accept
Submission started 8 days ago and was reviewed by 3 reviewers. One of them delayed the process until the end, and the review lasted for 1.5 months, which is the slowest speed I have ever seen for an MDPI manuscript. The advantage of an open-access journal is that they promptly decide whether to accept or reject your manuscript. The publication fee for more than 10,000 words is quite expensive, so those in urgent need of publishing a paper should consider it.

(1) Thank | Nano-Xman

2021.8.26 Submission
2021.9.12 Major revision
2021.9.15 Revised
2021.9.24 Accepted
The editor is very responsible, and the reviewers are very professional, they raised many targeted questions. The fast journal review process is a great advantage.

(1) Thank | 儒雅的火舞炫风

The Chinese Academy of Sciences has placed it on the warning list, mainly because of high fees and a large number of clustered Chinese papers, which raises suspicion of making money from Chinese people.
Personally, I feel that the review and editing of this journal are still very responsible. Three reviewers provided very detailed opinions. The third reviewer made three rounds of revisions, but in the end, they still disagreed with my conclusion and recommended rejection. Finally, I wrote a long debate email and asked the editor to forward it to the academic editor. After waiting for more than twenty days, the paper was directly accepted, probably by the chief editor.
The key point is that the speed of this journal is really fast. It took less than a week from submission to review, and about two weeks later, I received the opinions of three reviewers. Results were obtained approximately two weeks after each round of review.

(6) Thank | Xia

How should I put it, one advantage of OA journals is that the processing time is fast. Whether it's a donkey or a horse, someone will quickly inform you. You don't have to anxiously wait and waste time like non-OA journals. The reviewers are acquaintances or relevant personnel in your field. They will give review comments based on the journal's level and the quality of your article. If there are errors, they will definitely point them out. There is no binding between the reviewer and the journal, it's either a donkey or a horse. If your article's research workload, thinking capacity, and innovation meet the standards of this level of journal, then you can submit it. The downside is that authors have to pay fees, which can be as high as tens of thousands of yuan. Non-OA journals usually charge around 4K to 5K yuan. Also, for the sake of efficiency, the journal's typesetting is really ugly. For those who are used to symmetrical things, the web version's typesetting looks better.

(51) Thank | huangdouren