APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS

In fact, to tell the truth, there are many classic good articles in the journal, but there are more and more bad articles in recent years. Good articles are mostly contributed by older physicists. Now various publishers have published various high-impact factor journals. Except for some of these articles, which are indeed major discoveries, most of them are just hot spots and play to the gallery. Therefore, in the minds of the older generation of scientific researchers, APL is still very powerful and authoritative. However, with the launch of various new journals, the growth of a new generation of researchers, and the change in the Scientific research atmosphere, impact factors are about to become the gold standard for evaluating all kinds of things. Although it is unreasonable, we can't help it. This has led to most new generation of researchers generally submitted to high impact factor journals when they have any good work, and few people choose APL as the first choice. And in the past few years, many deputy editors of APL are really not good. Many articles have no highlights at all, but because the authors are authorities, the papers can be published. Valueless papers from the authorities can be published at their wills. For ordinary people, it is difficult to be accepted and the impact factor is low, which is really chilling. I think if the journal really wants to expand its influence, it won’t make much difference if it is not sent for review. I hope that it will be the key to carefully choosing an associate editor, otherwise it may really be ruined.

(40) Thank | 辛苦的科研狗

I think the 86th floor is right. I have submitted two or three articles in the past two years. I thought the quality of my articles was good, but they were all rejected. However, after I transferred to other journals, the number of citations of this article reached more than a dozen times, and the managing editor of each submission was the same person and never changed. I have also read many articles on APL. Some of the articles are of poor quality, but they can be published. So I think what the 86th floor said is reasonable. Now APL has really become a playground for the authorities, resulting in uneven article quality and very big differences. And now very few people like to cite APL. The processing speed of manuscripts is not as fast as before. It is recommended that you should be cautious when submitting to this journal. It is better not to submit to APL if you have articles of better qualities.

(5) Thank | Huang@MR

The downstairs is really nonsense. I submitted three articles last year and one got accepted. The other two were not sent for review, and fortunately, they were later submitted to the journals in Q1 of material category and got accepted after revisions, one in ASS and another in CEJ. I feel that the article that accepted here is not of high quality as the other two articles. Now APL has become a playground for the authority academics, resulting in different quality of articles. This is also one of the reasons why the impact factor has been falling. The impact factor for this year should be around 3.5. Downstairs, you must be dreaming of a top 5 within two years. Don't be fooled, everyone. Be cautious when submitting to this journal, and the speed is not as fast as in previous years. Some editors are irresponsible, and judge the quality of the article based on the first feeling. Of course, this journal is still authoritative, but it is not realistic to rush back to a Q1.

(10) Thank | 辛苦的科研狗

From what I’ve heard recently, the articles published in APL are still quite good. Many classic physics papers have been published in this journal. Our group submitted to APL recently, and our paper was accepted after 51 days. Apparently, the review period was longer than usual because one of the first three reviewers admitted that they did not understand our research, and therefore could not review the article. This was strange as the other two reviewers were thorough and critical, and clearly understood the evolution of the research (we were publishing a follow-up study to our advisor’s research). The editor found an alternative reviewer quickly, which was appreciated.

(25) Thank | kexue_880116@126.com

From my experience in publishing in this journal and from the research that I have read, I think that it provides high-quality scientific publications and is still one of the most important journals that provides solid scientific research.   I think that the journal's impact factor does not reflects the quality of the research published in it.

(0) Thank | mohamed

In the field of nonlinear acoustics, one reviewer agreed to accept directly, and another reviewer requested to add content, which was eventually accepted after revision.It took about 4 months from submission to final recruitment.The overall feeling that the journal requires the content of the article is relatively new, it is best to be a hot topic of recent research.

(4) Thank | 循循

The latest partition test version of the Chinese Academy of Sciences shows that APL has been classified as a district.

(25) Thank | Critical_hit

wrote an article about crystal growth, the editor directly refused, saying that the theme does not match, APL has reduced the number of manuscripts in recent years, many manuscripts are directly rejected by the editor.

(1) Thank | LightFloater

Old physics journals, dealing with manuscripts "fast" (fast processing, quick review, quick publication), "quasi" (higher level of reviewing experts), "狠" (edit rejection)The draft rate is also very high, and the difficulty of submitting the trial is increased).

(9) Thank | Unknown

The review is very fast and the editing speed is not so fast.After receiving, the line speed is very slow.Overall, it’s not bad, it’s fast and fast.Although it is getting more and more fading, it is still a veteran.

(0) Thank | BigM

Apl old-fashioned journals, support refueling

(17) Thank | 懵懂男孩

The reviewer is very responsible, the review is quick, overhauled, and directly acceptd after minor repairs.Still very lucky to submitted the first draft.Ha ha...Go ahead, come on!Share it together: 725554986

(1) Thank | 707145297@qq.com

The reviewer is very responsible and the review is coming to an end.Overhaul once, minor repairs, it is directly acceptd.Ha ha..Let's share it!725554986

(0) Thank | 707145297@qq.com

No. 3.6 submission, No. 4.19 notification was rejected, complaints were made after overhaul, and there was a reply to the reviewer's opinion in the middle, and No. 6.14 was received, which was generally normal.

(1) Thank | 123木头人

apl Now the article is a bit awkward, it’s getting harder and harder, and it’s not going to be submitted for trial.The following is the number of articles, as of today2018 (1,017)2017 (2,804)2016 (3,104)2015 (3,522)2014 (5,147)2013 (5,480)2012 (5,102)2011 (4,531)2010 (4,553)

(0) Thank | sdhgsdf

Submitted in early April, the editorial department did not pass the review, and then entered the long reviewer status, and sent six review invitations before and after, all rejected, almost desperate, about 10 timesday.Fortunately, the deputy editor is more responsible, and issued three or four rounds, found two reviewers, the first three days to complete the review, the second two weeks, a total of about 40 days before and after, overhaul, 60 days of revision timeAfter the modification is completed, it will be sent back, and only one reviewer will be given, and the comments will be received one week.The total sharing time is approximately 60 days.It is said that it is getting harder and harder now.

(0) Thank | 葵花点穴书

does not match the theme, rejected for three days, very efficient

(2) Thank | 2678989664@qq.com

APL is a typical physics journal, which pays more attention to speculation, and the reviewers have higher requirements for physical thinking.

(0) Thank | 我笑了

30-Mar-2018 Submit05-Apr-2018 Come back to review commentsApr 11, 2018 revised24-Apr-2018 online

(3) Thank | xmu

2017.1.18 Submission, the middle of the month to find the reviewer, on March 7th received three review comments, one of the reviewers I think I did not read my articleI have just found a few references for me to reject the manuscript. The other two reviewers have a more pertinent opinion and carefully answered the three reviewers. Of course, the first reviewer should be cautious, April 5.No. Rework, April 16th, second-instance opinion, the editor directly ignored the comments of the first reviewer, adopted the other two, seriously responded, returned on April 19, and received on April 28.Lasted 100 days

(3) Thank | arlafa

Days Since Original Submission: 76This is a courtesy message to let you know that your manuscript, though now severely in peer review, is being monitored for continued forward progress.I would like to apologize for the continued delay. We are attempting to let the peer review process run its course, albeit slowly.

(1) Thank | djt

An article was submitted on AM before, not very smooth. After being submitted to APL, it was received within one month. The content of the article itself is more novel, and also thanks to the reviewer.Give professional advice. Let me see that the ambitious APL is back, and will refer to APL in the future, and good manuscripts will also be considered for delivery to APL.

(4) Thank | HH

Not submitted for review.More than one day was directly rejected, and the efficiency is really fast..

(5) Thank | beijuzhe

is already the third APL in the doctoral period. The overall feeling is that the difficulty of APL reception has increased a lot. It is difficult to submit the review at present. I hope to quote more, improve the APL impact factor, and hopeAPL can get better and better!

(5) Thank | FW

The work is actually very beautiful. In a journal with more than 10 years, it has been in the middle of six months. It mainly encountered small peers who are doing the same or very similar topics. The reason for the draft is untenable.However, the editor stated that the editor actually only believed in the reviewer.Later, he switched to APL. The editor found two reviewers. During the revision period, he changed to find a new reviewer. After three revisions, he lasted for 8 months. He actually found four reviewers and finally acceptd them.Not easy.

(1) Thank | jxraman