Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
Thus was first time when I had bad story with ACS journals. First, the manuscript was submitted to ACS Energy Letters, but immediately declined and advised transfer to J. Phys. Chem. I declined this offer and submitted to J. Phys.Chem. Lett instead. Still, it was rejected and advised transferring to J. Phys. Chem. again, which was accepted. The reviewer's report in J. Phys. Chem. Lett. was negative but constructive and fast. J. Phys. Chem. C considered the transferred manuscript 1.5 months, attracting only one reviewer whose report was negative and non-constructive, I would say even biased, since answers to all queries concerning the manuscript were negative, presenting the manuscript as it would not have any merit. Although Editor mentioned "the scientific merit" of the manuscript and offered transfer to ACS Omega, this offer was not accepted in view of the wasted time given for the biased review. Thus, I lost more than 2 months with ACS journals with no constructive outcome. Next time I will be more careful with similar offers regarding transfer to J. Phys. Chem.
Immediately accepted after 0.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2020
15.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
My paper was transferred to "Journal of Physical Chemistry C" from "ACS Energy Letters" following the advice of the editor of "ACS Energy Letters".
Then after waiting for nearly 2 months, I received just some general reviewer comments (6 lines of text recommending rejection - not original enough was the only argument) and from just 1 reviewer. This reviewer job could have been done in just 2 hours but it took nearly 2 months!
I will never again submit to this journal. It shows no respect for the authors.
Then after waiting for nearly 2 months, I received just some general reviewer comments (6 lines of text recommending rejection - not original enough was the only argument) and from just 1 reviewer. This reviewer job could have been done in just 2 hours but it took nearly 2 months!
I will never again submit to this journal. It shows no respect for the authors.
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Everything was clear, rather quick, and properly handled by the editors.
The referee comments were appropriate and helped us.
The overall duration of hte revision process was absolutely acceptable.
The referee comments were appropriate and helped us.
The overall duration of hte revision process was absolutely acceptable.
13.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
4.3 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
8.9 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
This experience was revealed that choosing the experienced and efficient high scientific level reviewers is the key to make efficient reviewing process.
2.5 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
After publishing in several other journals, the overall experience in working with JPC-C was eye-opening. Not only were the referee reports in total, as well as their criticism relevant (something that can sadly not be expected from certain other journals), but they also arrived fast. Interaction with the editing staff was flawless and uncomplicated.
I can only recommend JPC-C to everyone.
I can only recommend JPC-C to everyone.