ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS

We are in the field of mechanical manufacturing, and sometimes even submitting to IF5 journals can be met with harsh criticism from reviewers. Of course, it's difficult for articles in the manufacturing field to make it into such journals. We have always looked up to the AFM and AM series for their outstanding papers.

In 2020, during the pandemic, we had an inspired idea and, after a year of hard work with my junior colleague, we turned it into an article. I always felt that the topic was right (a universal problem, not a specific one in the mechanical field). The innovation was really good, and similar studies had even appeared in high-level journals like AM and AFM. It was very nerve-wracking, as our entire school rarely submits articles to these kinds of journals.

After careful consideration, we mustered up the courage to try, thinking that getting it reviewed would lead to success. We submitted it on September 24, 2021, and it remained under consideration. Based on the experiences of friends above, we counted the days and reached the 6th, 13th, and 20th day, confirming that it was under review.

On October 20, 2021, we received the feedback, and surprisingly, it was good. There were four reviewers with comments ranging from 5%, 15%, 10%, to 30%. There were over 50 comments, mostly asking for implementation details. The editor gave us only 10 days for major revisions.

On October 30, 2021, we submitted the revised version in a rush. We replied with sincerity and fear, afraid that our response would not satisfy the reviewers.

On November 23, 2021, it was directly accepted.

My impression is, if you have a good idea and can clearly explain the added value of your innovation, you must try these journals that were once considered impossible. They serve as a morale booster on the research path, and I hope we can explore even broader horizons together.

I should be the author with the longest review period in the history of AFM, but finally, the result is satisfactory. The submission process was roughly as follows:

Submitted on August 16, 2022.
Sent for review in early September 2022.
Received first review comments around January 18, 2023 (a direct acceptance, two major revisions, and one rejection). The editor requested major revisions, and there was a two-week revision period. Extension was requested due to the long review process, possibly because it was sent twice - once with positive and negative reviews.
Revised and submitted again in early February 2023, addressing the questions raised by the three reviewers and conducting additional experiments. It was a long wait.
Received second review comments around April 1, 2023. Minor revisions were requested, and the overall evaluation was positive. Surprisingly, the reviewer who previously rejected the paper agreed to accept it this time, providing a positive evaluation (top 15%). Two other reviewers raised a few minor questions, and the revised version was submitted before Tomb Sweeping Day. Another long wait ensued.
Received third review comments on May 3, 2023. One reviewer was satisfied, but the third reviewer raised two very minor questions (no need for additional experiments). Some explanations were provided, and a few sentences were modified. Initially, it seemed unlikely that the paper would be sent for review again, but unexpectedly, it was sent for another round of review. More waiting...
Finally, on June 8, 2023, the official acceptance notice was received. The process is complete, celebration time! Thanks to Julia Reuter, the editor, and all the reviewers.