A very influential journal, highly recommended for everyone to submit articles! Due to the low number of comments, the person shared their own submission experience.

(0) 讚！ | wangenmm

The first submission was made on January 13, 2026, but errors were found in the manuscript after submission. Therefore, the journal was contacted to request a withdrawal.
The editor processed the withdrawal and resubmission on the same day;
After waiting for several days for a decision, the manuscript entered the "Awaiting referee reports" stage, with no specific date found.
On March 18, "Major revisions" were received, and the reviewer's attitude was very friendly, providing very good suggestions for modifications.
Previously, this manuscript was submitted to Lab on a chip, where the reviewer's attitude was clearly biased, resulting in rejection.
On April 23, the revised manuscript was submitted;
After a few days, it continued to be in the "Awaiting referee reports" stage, during which the editor sent copyright confirmation information.
On May 12, the manuscript was preliminarily accepted, a status encountered for the first time, and it was already searchable in Web of Science;
On May 22, the manuscript was officially accepted and underwent online proofreading. Nowadays, AI proofreading is used, and AI automatically deleted a duplicate reference, saving the author from making the change, which was very efficient;
On June 5, the manuscript was published online.

(0) 讚！ | wangenmm

20250703 submitted
20251003 major revision
20251205 accept

(1) 讚！ | KORIN

Excuse me, does anyone know about real-time IF?

(0) 讚！ | 狗儿狗

Submitted at the end of July and received the decision for major revision in early October. Submitted the revised paper in mid-November; status changed to waiting for decision 2 days later. After another 2 days I was told the paper was tentatively accepted. This is the first time I submit to this journal. Seeing the small number of articles published each year, I wasn’t so sure that it would be accepted. The reviewers were very good; they raised many questions that indeed helped improving the paper. I revised the paper carefully in accordance with the reviewers' suggestions, and added new experiments. The reviewers must have felt satisfied with my revision.

(0) 讚！ | 古月