SPECTROCHIMICA ACTA PART B-ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY
| Subject Area | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Category: Physics and Astronomy Subcategory: Instrumentation |
31 / 174 | |
| Category: Physics and Astronomy Subcategory: Spectroscopy |
19 / 79 | |
| Category: Physics and Astronomy Subcategory: Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics |
57 / 232 | |
| Category: Physics and Astronomy Subcategory: Analytical Chemistry |
50 / 160 |
| APC | APC Waiver | Other Charges |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Quartiles By JIF | Collection | Quartile | Rank | Percentage |
| Category: SPECTROSCOPY | SCIE | Q1 | 7/44 |
|
| Quartiles By JCI | Collection | Quartile | Rank | Percentage |
| Category: SPECTROSCOPY | SCIE | Q1 | 5/44 |
|
| Journal Title | h-index | CiteScore |
|---|---|---|
| PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY | 93 | 13.60 |
| MASS SPECTROMETRY REVIEWS | 116 | 16.80 |
| APPLIED SPECTROSCOPY REVIEWS | 55 | 14.20 |
| SPECTROCHIMICA ACTA PART A-MOLECULAR AND BIOMOLECULAR SPECTROSCOPY | 104 | 8.50 |
| NMR IN BIOMEDICINE | 104 | 6.30 |
| SOLID STATE NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE | 54 | 4.00 |
| ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY | 28 | 4.80 |
| APPLIED SPECTROSCOPY | 101 | 4.90 |
| JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY | 115 | 4.00 |
| JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR NMR | 98 | 5.00 |
Select your rating and start your review of SPECTROCHIMICA ACTA PART B-ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY
2024-06-12
Pushing for a decision is a form of rejection. My submission was reviewed in 25 days, with one minor revision accepted and one rejected. Then the senior editor spent 2 months looking for reviewers, inviting 9 people who all declined. In the end, I received feedback from two reviewers, but the journal's reputation was declining, so they asked for another 3 months. If they had rejected me outright in 25 days, I could have understood, but dragging it out for 3 months is unacceptable
2024-06-03
May I know how many months it takes to receive the final review feedback?
2024-04-14
Why did my two reviewers send out review invitations after they completed their reviews?
2023-09-18
In the first major revision, two reviewers returned a total of 67 comments. After the major revision, the second reviewer returned 36 comments. After the third submission, the editor gave the result directly in 4 days. The editor was kind and the reviewers provided many suggestions, which were also very professional
2022-07-06
It has been two months since I submitted it, and it is still under review. Should I follow up?
2022-05-26
It has been a month since the manuscript was reviewed, should I remind them?
2020-12-16
It requires a high innovation and a certain mechanism analysis. Purely experimental report articles are more difficult to be accepted. This journal is still very popular among international scholars. The top conferences in this field will always choose SAB to publish a special issue after they are held.
2019-02-05
Revision speed was slow. The comments from one of the reviewers were of little help. One reviewer made positive comments and helped to improve the general presentation of the manuscript. The first reviewer disagreed with the response. After 5 months of revision, they passed their deadline and finally rejected the manuscript. I felt the reviewers showed somewhat unprofessional behavior.
2012-04-08
selectd in January this year, and returned to the overhaul opinion at the end of March, four questions, one of which asked for an experiment.The journal's review speed is slow, and the review of the paper found that the speed of reviewing my paper is relatively fast.In addition, the journal's manuscript is generally easy to accept, but the impact factor may decline.
2010-08-15
This journal belongs to the 2 district journals, but the amount of manuscripts is average, and some papers with emphasis on mechanism are preferred. The papers with pure general analysis test have lower hit rates.If the two reviewers disagree, the basic draft; but the number of selects is more, the editor will give the opportunity.
