The CC editor processes quickly, why is it stuck at this step?

(1) 讚！ | Beginner0015

Submission on 3.16, two reviewers uploaded their comments on 4.10, and the status changed to "with editor" on 4.11. It is still "with editor" at present. Is this speed normal?

(0) 讚！ | Beginner0015

2.26 Initial assessment
3.3 With editor
3.4 In peer review

(0) 讚！ | 金楚瑶

Who is the editor?

(0) 讚！ | zifengtaxue

On December 2, 2025, a minor revision and two suggestions for resubmission were made, but they were all related to formatting. The editor rejected the submission, and the reviewers that were found were not professional. There is a reason for the decline. This was the first and last time submitting to this journal.

(0) 讚！ | ACS Chemistry

10.30 Submitted
11.02 Under editor's consideration
11.03 In peer review
11.06 2 reviewers agreed
11.13 2 reviews received
11.16 Still in this status, how are things with the family members

(0) 讚！ | ACS Chemistry

Contributed a timeline, and happened to have a suitable small job to give to CC in the field of energy electrochemistry:
2025/09/04 submit
2025/09/06 in peer review
2025/09/26 major revise (3 reviewers, 1 rejection, 1 direct acceptance, 1 major revision)
2025/11/05 revise submit (editor reminded once after two weeks, then applied for a 3-week extension, revised on the same day and submitted)
2025/11/06 in peer review
2025/11/12 accept (only received comments from the reviewer who requested major revisions)
The handling editor is David Lou, and the process was fast and the experience was good.

(0) 讚！ | likeyang

Which new journal does the editor recommend submitting to?

(0) 讚！ | letpub610

Just proved yesterday, still don't know the online time.

(0) 讚！ | wangjustb

8.7 submitted
8.8 initial assessment
8.14 with editor
8.17 in peer review
.....Long wait (during which two reviewers received the manuscript, then around 9.10 both opinions were received, then 9.12 with editor, 9.13 in peer review, arbitrated)
9.22 decision of major revision, one rejection, one revise, the third arbitration integrated the previous two opinions and gave a major revision, which the editor revised
10.7 submitted
10.8 with editor
10.9 in peer review
.....
10.13 in peer review
(awaiting)

(0) 讚！ | xj1730

Hello, may I ask how long it will take to receive the publication after acceptance?

(0) 讚！ | zch000

Hello, may I ask how long it usually takes to receive the publication after acceptance?

(0) 讚！ | zch000

Hello, how long does it take to receive the publication?

(0) 讚！ | zch000

How long does it take to receive the publication?

(0) 讚！ | zch000

Submitted 07-Aug-2025
Under review 12-Aug-2025
Major Revision 18-Sep-2025
Revision submitted 06-Oct-2025
Accept 08-Oct-2025

First submission to Chemical Communications, overall feeling is good (the second reviewer took some time to provide feedback), reviewers are professional, editors are nice, hope CC can maintain its stability and revive the glory of this prestigious journal!

(0) 讚！ | wangjustb

Where can I view the changes in Reviews?

(0) 讚！ | 杰伦爱蜗牛

The status has changed from Initial assessment to Submitted. Does anyone know what's going on?

(0) 讚！ | Han yang111

Little stove, haha, is this situation going to be reviewed later?

(0) 讚！ | alex_angew

Little stove, haha, is the review coming up next?

(0) 讚！ | alex_angew

It has been twelve days and it is still in the "submitted" status. What's going on?

(0) 讚！ | 小火炉哈哈

Why did my status change from Initial assessment to Submitted, and then stay unchanged?

(0) 讚！ | 小火炉哈哈

First, the 4-page communication layout is not a problem for the data volume of articles from 10 years ago. Today, sticking to just 4 pages, how much data and text can be accommodated? It would be a real development to expand to 6 pages. Additionally, these editors at RSC are extremely unfriendly towards authors they do not know (i.e. non-relatives). The journal has now become a tool for their own social purposes and to pay tribute to the big shots.

(0) 讚！ | BSA封闭

No wonder it's getting worse and worse. I submitted a paper to this journal with an impact factor of 4, thinking it was a reputable chemistry journal, but it was not sent for review. The reason given was that one of the figures was too small and there was too much information in the SI, making it unsuitable for communication. I will not submit to this journal again, and I will not cite it in the future.

(2) 讚！ | BSA封闭

Now, reviewers are increasingly looking at whether the person is an insider or outsider in the field. They have high expectations for small research teams, while big shots are being lenient, no wonder the more they do, the worse it gets.

(0) 讚！ | mqwang

Hello, how did it go after your second review? I have also been waiting for 20 days without any news. Can we send an email to urge them?

(0) 讚！ | 全全代表