JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION

I saw a lot of news about JCP on the Internet, both good and bad. I would like to share a little bit of my own humble opinion here. Please don’t complain if you don’t like it. I submitted an article to JCP before, and the first review speed was very fast. About two months later the review comments came back. It was a bit scary that there were 6 reviewers, which is the largest number of reviewers and comments I had seen. Reviewers' comments were very pertinent, which also shew that my research ability or writing level was limited, so I got so many comments. This also showed that the journal attached great importance to manuscript review. But one of the reviewers had very sharp opinions and criticized me very much. At the end of his comments, I was asked to refer to (i.e. cite) six articles. I found that the authors were all the same person. This meant that this reviewer asked me to cite his articles. To be honest, this kind of reviewer is annoying. It is said that JCP has a high self-citing rate, but the volume of this journal is also large, and a person who wants to submit to a journal must first know what kind of articles the journal will accept, so I think this is acceptable. Also, the main theme of this journal is clean production and energy, which should be reflected in the introduction and conclusion. So when I wrote it, I referred to many articles reflecting this theme in this journal. If you refer to an article, you have to cite it, which is understandable. Furthermore, I personally feel that there are only good or bad articles but no good or bad journals. If you do like a journal, you can submit to it. If you don't like it, you can submit to something else. Each takes what you need, and finds the suitable one.

(535) Thank | Omair

2020.02.01, submitted; 2020.02.06, with editor; 2020.02.09, under review; 2020.02.26, under editor evaluation; 2020.03.08, major revision; 2020.05.09, revision submitted; 2020.05.12, under review; 2020.05.17, required reviews completed; 2020.05.26, decision in process; 2020.05.27, minor revision; 2020.05.27, revision submitted; 2020.05.28, with editor; 2020.06.01, required reviews completed; 2020.06.11, decision in process; 2020.06.11, accept. There were three reviewers, two agreed to accept it, and the other one had sharp words, who raised more than 20 questions and required me to supplement experiments. Thanks to the editors for showing mercy. During the pandemic, the speed was very slow. I logged in every day to check it out. I was anxious. It was finally accepted. Thank you for sharing!

(7) Thank | 木易1

2019.11.14, submitted; 2019.11.15, with editor; 2019.11.24, under review; 2019.12.11, under review; 2019.12.15, under review; 2019.12.22, under review; 2020.01.11, under editor evaluation; 2020.01.26, major revision; 2020.02.24, revision submitted; 2020.02.25, with editor; 2020.03.01, under review; 2020.03.09, required reviews completed; 2020.03.15, accepted. 2020.03.20, proof. It was the second time to submit to the Journal of Chemical Physics. There were twists and turns in this review. It took more than 2 months to receive the review comments, and it took 4 months from submission to acceptance. The comments of the editor and reviewers were very profound! Thanks to editor Panos Seferlis and the reviewers for their work! I hope this journal will get better and better. If there is progress in energy and environmental, I will submit to it again.

(8) Thank | 流落de小奶牛

2019-01-25 submitted to journal; 2018-01-26 with editor; 2018-02-05 under review; 2019-03-16 major revision; 2019-04-17 revision submitted to journal; 2019-04-19 with editor; 2019-04-19 under review; 2019-05-07 minor revision; 2019-05-21 revision submitted to journal; 2019-05-22 with editor; 2019-05-22 minor revision; 2019-05-23 revision submitted to journal; 2019-05-24 with editor; 2019-05-27 minor revision; 2019-06-28 revision submitted to journal; 2019-06-30 accept; 2019-07-11 Online. Reviewer comments are very pertinent, but the editor is a bit of problem.

(4) Thank | Cowadopt

Actually more than 14 months. 21 Apr 2019 Accepted; 20 Apr 2019 With Editor; 17 Apr 2019 Revision Submitted to Journal; 13 Apr 2019 Minor Revision; 14 Mar 2019 Under Review; 27 Oct 2018 Under Review; 3 Aug 18 Under Review; 2 Aug 18 With Editor; 1 Aug 18 Revision Submitted to Journal; 1 Aug 18 Revision Needs Approval; 1 Aug 18 Building PDF; 12 May 18 Incomplete; 12 May 18 Revise; 12 May 18 Author Declines to Revise; 11 May 18 Revise; 11 May 18 Decision in Process; 29 Jan 18 Under Review; 27 Jan 18 With Editor; 25 Jan 18 Submitted to Journal.

(2) Thank | yiersan

Five months from submission (May 2018) to accept (Oct 2018). Not bad.

(4) Thank | o(∩_∩)o 哈哈

JCP is a efficient journal that I ever submitted. First submission on 27/1/2019. Revision submission 0n 1/4/2019, Accepted on 18/4/2019. I am strongly recommended JCP is a good journal to be chosen.

(0) Thank | linwoonleong@gmail.com

JCP is a efficient journal that I ever submitted. First submission on 27/1/2019. Revision submission 0n 1/4/2019, Accepted on 18/4/2019. I am strongly recommended JCP is a good journal to be chosen.

(0) Thank | linwoonleong@gmail.com

The review will result in two months, four reviewers, two minor repairs, the other two are negative, but there is no clear rejection of the draft, and then the editor refused..I appealed, but I didn't return the mail.I read other people's submission information, four reviewers, two reviewers clearly rejected the draft, the editor also gave the re-review and re-submitment, and finally.I don’t know why, I’m watching it.

(2) Thank | 小鸡

The journal has been under review since 2013.1.17. It is still in this state until now. I hope to get good results and hope to be accepted by the journal!

(1) Thank | xgly

May, 2018 sent, under review after 10 days, august, 2019 after 2 and half month major revision, 5 reviewers, sent back, after 2 month received minor revision (just format) one reviewer, sent back, after one month minor revision 2 reviewer, then after 0ne month minor revision, then after one month minor revision and prayers goes on in january 2019. one major revision,  3 very minor revisions. very irresponsible journal

(1) Thank | lintang

9.10 Contributed, 11.5 overhaul; December 22 submitted revised draft, January 8th edited to Xiao Xiu; January 9th submitted revised draft; January 16th received.The entire submission lasted more than 4 months and felt very fast.Thanks to the journal editor and three reviewers.

(1) Thank | 雕刻人生

Is the journal charged?

(2) Thank | qiangzi

The article was accepted last night.It’s a surprise.Change from the second to the first, or top.I want to burn incense.

(5) Thank | 163杰天地

Today, I have checked the 1st area, happy, because there is an article on the road., haha!!!

(5) Thank | 我又不乱来

Admitted an article in mid-October, so...Now I am smashing a section of TOP??Amazing!Still very happy ∀(^∀^●)ノ

(10) Thank | o(∩_∩)o 哈哈

This year, I have a 1 section, and there is a road on the road....It was also drunk, and it was initially rejected from Zone 1.....

(8) Thank | yudeyou

Haha, yes, now it is a district...Specially registered for a review...

(9) Thank | wendalu

This journal is soHigh self-introduction, will not be kicked out?

(7) Thank | qiangzi

A tragedy due to the repetition rate problem a month ago, the weight was reduced to re-submitment.11.13 with the editor to the present, it is awkward, the amount of manuscript is not very big!

(1) Thank | yudeyou

landlord to do hazardous waste treatment and resource utilization directionSubmitted by 2018.07.242018.07.26 with editor2018.07.28 under review2018.08.06 under editor evalution2018.08.07 revise-major revisionFirst-instance thief is fast, good luck, three reviewers: one reviewer more than a dozen questions, the other on two or three, the third did not evaluate2018.08.17 Submit revision2018.08.18 Chief Editor2018.08.19 Associate Editor2018.09.01 under review2018.10.24 Waited too long, the boss asked to writeSo I wrote a reminder letter and accepted it for a total of three months.2018.10.31 online2018.11.01 proof2018.11.07 final versionI have always been concerned about the dynamics. Secondly, I really benefit from this website.So share it with everyone. HahaI wish jclp is getting better

(37) Thank | NIC

14 may 2018: Submit17 may 2018: under review15 sep 2018: Overhaul5 oct 2018: Submit7 oct 2018: with editor8 oct 2018: under review20 oct 2018: Overhaul (just three small questions)23 oct 2018: Submit25 oct 2018: accept27 oct 2018: Proof

(3) Thank | ck0719

Welcome to the penguin group discussion: 785268896

(0) Thank | 齐德隆东墙

2.7 submitted3.3 revision4.15 resubmitted5.10 accepted5.17 online

(2) Thank | hebutjzy

. This journal feels that many people in the management science direction are contributing, but the quality of the article isIt’s really not very good, irrigation is more powerful, and one of our articles was rejected by other journals, and the JCP was finally submitted.It is recommended that the brothers in the direction of the tube can select for EJOR, IJPE, IJPR or not. This is not very good in the direction of the tube.

(9) Thank | SEU-Huang