APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS

review 5 days directly edited to the data, now it is more and more difficult to select for an APL

(2) Thank | zhujiakun@hust.edu.cn

A reviewer is a bit slow, dragging for more than 2 months.The journal has been submitted to the reception for a total of 101 days.I feel that if I am more biased, I still provide several professional reviewers.

(0) Thank | asiawan

The first independent completion of writing and modifying APL, lasting 100 days, the early selection of reviewersThe stage was delayed for nearly one month. From the time of the select to the first review, it took two months, a little longer than the APL average review cycle. Three reviewers were found, but they are usually two reviewers.People, for the first time, replied to the opinions of the three reviewers and returned to the minor repairs. Only the opinions of the second and third reviewers were returned, and they returned to minor repairs and acceptd.

(1) Thank | arlafa@yeah.net

The first sci, I feel very lucky, it lasted 69 days.APL efficiency is much higher than most domestic journals.A total of 2 reviewers are in related fields, and the opinions put forward are also very good, which is conducive to improving the quality of the article. Personally, there is no such thing as watering by individual people.The status of the manuscript given by the journal is very detailed. It is clear that you know which step to take and the feedback is timely.During the period, I often come to the forum to see everyone's posts, and now I will give back.

(46) Thank | anqi1986@126.com

The number of papers published in 2016 is half of that in 2014, and as the volume of submission increases,The difficulty of submitting trials has increased by many times, and the number of reviewers has increased substantially. The review is obviously stricter. It can be seen that the ambitious APL has returned since the editor-in-chief.It is now much harder to publish an APL than it was a few years ago, and it is almost a PRL.

(79) Thank | Thermal

has published 4 APLs before and after.Two of the results are very good, in fact, the PRL is also able to select.Now the references to these two articles have exceeded 200.Unfortunately, the influence of APL is gradually declining now.

(18) Thank | LW

Real-time impact factor 2.92

(2) Thank | wsl

Irrigation Journal, will definitely blacklist in the future, not worth submiting.

(7) Thank | kiss

APL allows the Chinese to fill too much water, lacking the original highlights, and really declining, and the influence is as straight as his IF.

(7) Thank | 探索者

is so slow, let the editorial department delay two weeks, sweat...Manuscript Submitted to Editorial Office 29-Jun-2016 05:03:27Decision Sent to Author 02-Sep-2016 16:03:14Revised Manuscript Received from Author 15-Sep-2016 07:30:40Decision Sent to Author 20-Oct-2016 10:09:47Manuscript Sent to Production 20-Oct-2016 11:39:44

(0) Thank | galaxy

APL The editing efficiency is really high. After the revision, the results of the format review will be answered within one day!give it a like!

(17) Thank | Anonymous

This journal is mixed, but there are too many differences, especially Chinese people like to fill this journal, do not meditation to do research, the picture is short and fast, many research and garbage are similar, more than 90%APL articles are basically garbage.

(20) Thank | 疯狂猪头

The first time I selectd for APL, it was not easy.After the first draft was submitted, the revised comments were received within one and a half months of the month; after one and a half months of revision, the revised manuscript was submitted, and it was accepted for about one month.It took almost 4 months before and after.The reviewer's review is quite fast, two weeks for the first trial and three days for the second trial.However, it was a long time in the editorial office and the requirements were strict.The overall feeling is that the requirements for novelty and physical mechanism are high.

(8) Thank | Anonymous

quite awesome!!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Stage Start Date Under Review 2012-11-12 21:55:56 Securing Reviewer(s) 2012-11-04 15:57:45 Figure Quality Analysis Completed 2012-10-23 02:33:52 Securing Reviewer(s) 2012-10-20 23:22:55 Under Consideration - Editorial Office

(0) Thank | Anonymous

has been submitted for review, and the results are expected to be reviewed. 40 minutes... StageStart DateEditorial Evaluation - Editor2012-12-12 15:11:10Under Review2012-12-12 14:31:32Securing Reviewer(s)2012-12-06 10:42:09Under Consideration - Editorial Office2012-12-05 16:18:14Figu

(0) Thank | Anonymous

first time select, reviewer review is very carefulAfter reviewing for one month, the reviewer Reconsider for APL after mandatory revision (major), the overall feeling of reviewer direction is biased, do not understand the application value of the material; after the revision, Securing Reviewer (s) directly accepted for two weeks, I still feelVery unexpected.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

APL is now basically unlimited, and has been seen on pages 4-6 after typesetting, and it also allows for the addition of supplementary information.It can be seen that the journal has been changing.However, there is no substantial improvement in the level of his article.After the space limit is relaxed, the features are no longer obvious. There will be more and more articles focusing on comprehensiveness, but will reduce the proportion of articles with strong innovation.And now it's time to start collecting the face fee.In general, APL's articles can still be handed.It is not very difficult to submit a manuscript, and the review speed is very fast, which is worth a shot.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

APL Review is very fast, of course, the editing requirements of each district are different.The first article in the APL submitted iron and electric area is about the high K aspect. When it comes to SUSAN, the first trial minor repair, the second trial overhaul, the same is to ask a few very difficult problems, we must seriously change, and receive it one week after repair.Submitted in 2012.2.28, received in 5.14.The second part of the optoelectronic district, only one reviewer, 8.27 submission, 9.18 directly received, the evaluation is 11 Yes, Very Good.In general, APL reviewers are big bulls in the industry. As long as your articles have bright spots, novel enough, theoretical support is very important, and then there are more references to APL articles. I have a total of 29 references, including 1

(4) Thank | Anonymous

The younger brother just selectd for an APL, and the editor gave it to Xiao Xiu. He just submitted the revised draft the day before. I don’t know if he will find the reviewer again.忐忑~~~

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The younger brother recently got an APL!The review is fast!How do the impact factors always falter?!!!

(0) Thank | Anonymous

A manuscript of 2009, after nearly a year of tossing, was JAP.So it has only been quoted a dozen times.A short manuscript in 2012, after 150 days, first refused to draft (fair); do not give up, appeal to select again, then consider (good) after modification; modify, directly accept (very good).During the period of review, it was very long to find several reviewers for each review.I later forgot to have this manuscript.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

So far 3 articles

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Upload files of the submission interface How to select the file, press upload always does not respond, have you encounteredA similar situation of the bug to give advice

(0) Thank | Anonymous

2012.05.11 contribution 2012.06.04 Return to the comments, minor repair 2012.06.12 select revised draft 2012.06.19 Receive

(0) Thank | Anonymous