Currently, two vacuum articles have been accepted, both of which are short articles, but focus on TEM+XPS analysis. Both articles are in the hands of editor-in-chief Whitman. The first article took exactly two months from submission to acceptance, with one reviewer providing feedback, and five reviewers accepting the submission but not providing feedback. The second article took a bit longer, about two months and three weeks, with one reviewer providing feedback and three reviewers accepting the submission but not providing feedback, and the editor providing feedback on XPS. As mentioned below, the C1s calibration needs to explain why it is set at 284.8eV. The editor is very concerned about this and has recently received an article from the Program of Materials Science and Nature Review Materials. It is recommended that those working with XPS study in advance and cite relevant work.

The editor is really super friendly, both articles were with the editor the day after submission, and if suitable, they were sent for review immediately. Reviewers are requested to provide feedback within 3 weeks, otherwise, if delayed, a new set of reviewers will be assigned; if unsuitable, they will be rejected on the same day (within the same discipline). Both articles were decided on major revisions but were given a minor revision time frame (7 days), generally without any issues. Hopefully, the group at the Chinese Academy of Sciences won't abolish the district next year. The workload of the journal generally has no relation, as mentioned above, thorough analysis is required for XPS and TEM. Beautiful graphics can also make the editor have a good impression. Remember to cite vacuum articles from the past two years to increase the journal's impact factor, which benefits everyone, haha.

(1) 讚！ | 我想要毕业啊

May I ask how long the Vacuum editor gives the reviewers to review the manuscript?

(0) 讚！ | 元加

Under review until December 3, 2024.

(0) 讚！ | zhqdd

Just replied that I have revised the relevant data according to his request, and then listed the modified paragraphs. That's it.

(0) 讚！ | liang_chaofei

No, my coating material does not involve H, but it does involve O.

(0) 讚！ | liang_chaofei

2024.11.27 Under Review.

(0) 讚！ | zhqdd

Submitted to Journal on November 27, 2024.

(0) 讚！ | zhqdd

It has been a week since my meeting with the editor.

(0) 讚！ | liudh

How long will the with editor process last approximately?

(0) 讚！ | YTBZ啊！

How do you know that the editor has found three reviewers in a week? I haven't received any tracking emails.

(0) 讚！ | 我只有100多斤

Do you have any information about H and O?

(0) 讚！ | yggg

Could you please clarify if all authors need to agree in order to submit to this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 纯蓝色

May I ask if all authors need to agree in order to proceed with submitting to this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 纯蓝色

May I ask if all co-authors need to agree in order to submit to this journal?

(0) 讚！ | 纯蓝色

Employment for 2 months, 7 days.

(0) 讚！ | 5313

How many review comments do we need to receive before making a decision? Currently, we have four reviewers accepting the review.

(1) 讚！ | 森木2023

The submission was made in mid-July, and the review process was very fast. The editor found three reviewers within a week. The editor's suggestions were important, and additional experiments were given about 50 days for revisions. The revised manuscript was accepted just one or two days after resubmission. The journal impressed me most with its efficiency, followed by the editor's friendliness.

(0) 讚！ | 山河浴宇

How many reviewers are typically needed for the review process?

(0) 讚！ | 5313

Submitted in April 2024, the manuscript was quickly handled by the editor, who rejected it outright and asked for a resubmission with additional XPS data. After three rounds of revisions (mostly minor issues due to lack of attention), it was finally accepted in early August. The editor was quite lenient. However, those who have submitted to this journal before should know that the editor specializes in XPS and seems to have their own theories.

(0) 讚！ | president-D

This journal seems to enjoy asking people to resubmit, as I have been rejected and resubmitted, only to be rejected again...

(0) 讚！ | xiaoXQ

I have submitted to more than a dozen journals and have never reviewed other journals. This submission experience is truly unforgettable, especially because Vacuum is one of the journals I have known since my postgraduate studies. The editorial process was actually very fast, with decisions being made within two to three days after submission or review. However, I do not agree with the reviewers' rejection, as there are many papers using the same method in Vacuum. The editors did not appropriately differentiate the reviewers' comments, which is regrettable to me.

(0) 讚！ | 路途漫无期

Excuse me, does this journal accept articles on metal materials applied in vacuum?

(0) 讚！ | 茶叶

The submission was made at the end of March 2023, reviewed by two people, returned for revisions in mid-May, resubmitted in July, and feedback was received at the end of August. One was accepted, but one reviewer was still not satisfied with the responses. Uncertain how to proceed, it was left unattended for a long time. In February 2024, the editor emailed stating no response had been received, and the submission was cancelled. However, I was encouraged to revise and resubmit. Determined, I addressed the issues and resubmitted in March. This time, it was reviewed by 9 people, 6 accepted and 3 returned for revisions in late April. Unfortunately, one of the reviewers who previously rejected the submission was included again and rejected it once more. After revisions were made and resubmitted in June, the feedback was returned on July 25th, with two acceptances and a final rejection from the same reviewer. The editor suggested resubmitting a substantially revised version as a new submission. After enduring over a year of turmoil, it felt like a bitter pill to swallow. I have no intention of resubmitting. Comparing the quality and methodology of my paper to those published in reputable journals, it is evident that my work was on par. Despite gaining approval from the majority of reviewers, it was ultimately rejected due to one negative opinion. The road of research is not easy, rejection is common, but this unforgettable rejection is truly disheartening.

(0) 讚！ | 路途漫无期

Efficiency is too high
2024-05-31 submitted to journal
2024-05-31 with editor
2024-06-01 under review

(0) 讚！ | 潇洒哥

The latest real-time impact factor is out, showing a decrease instead of an increase. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is not very friendly to journals with large numbers of submissions from Chinese nationals but not produced domestically. Be cautious of the decline zone

(0) 讚！ | 随风