嗑盐小学渣 2023-07-26

2023.5.23 submitted and initial assessment
2023.5.30 with editor
2023.6.1 in peer review
2023.6.29 major revision, two reviewers
2023.7.15 revision submitted
2023.7.18 in peer review
2023.7.25 accepted
The second MH, MH still maintains an extremely fast processing speed. I hope RSC keeps up the good work, it is a highly esteemed journal, let's not bury it.

feimiqilin 2023-07-04

4.10 initial assessment
4.20 in peer review
5.10 major revision
5.27 revision submitted
5.31 in peer review
6.14 major revision
6.19 revision submitted
6.27 accept
7.3 proof

Early stages were relatively slow, but after the peer review, it picked up pace. The manuscript went through major and minor revisions, and one rejection. The editor was very kind and allowed a major revision. The reviewers were meticulous and provided some additional questions after the revisions. The editor requested another major revision, which was very good. Overall, it is a great journal, and I hope it continues to improve!

animalyao 2023-06-25

Okay, thank you for your response!

lengyue 2023-06-24

"10来天proof" translates to "proof in around 10 days."

bluesyu 2023-06-24

I checked the proof and received it three days ago. I accepted it on May 16th and received the proof email on May 18th.

animalyao 2023-06-20

Just asking, how long does it take to receive the proof for this journal? It has been 12 days and I still haven't received the proof email.

animalyao 2023-06-20

Just wondering, how long does it take to receive the proof of this journal? Have you received the proof email? I received it one day later than you, but I haven't received the proof email yet.

animalyao 2023-06-08

4.23 submitted
5.15 in peer review
5.30 minor revision
6.7 revision submitted
6.8 accepted

lengyue 2023-06-07

Evaluation for 10 days, in the hands of the editor for 10 days, reviewed for three weeks, two major revisions and one rejection, after the editor gave major revisions, returned for modification after three weeks, accepted one week later, top 5 content, the reviewer also gave positive evaluations, stating that the rejection was due to not meeting the journal requirements. However, MH also has technological innovations and the innovative materials it brings, so I believe the editor gave major revisions based on the opinions of the other two reviewers. There were a total of 13 issues raised by the three reviewers, hoping that the journal will continue to improve. Additionally, the system's upload limit of 60MB is very unreasonable, it took me a lot of effort to upload more than ten videos.

lengyue 2023-06-07

3.31 initial assessment - This refers to the initial evaluation or appraisal of something.
4.10 with editor - This means that something is currently being revised or edited by an editor.
5.9 major revision - This indicates that a significant or substantial revision is being made to something.
5.31 in peer review - This signifies that something is currently being evaluated or reviewed by peers.
6.7 accept - This means that something has been approved or accepted.

Sun678 2023-06-06

Has yours changed?

5511 2023-05-24

Preliminary assessment, it has been 6 days and it has not yet been delivered to the editor's hands. What is going on?

bluesyu 2023-05-16

2023.03.08 submitted
2023.04.04 major revision (three reviewers, one rejection, two minor revisions)
2023.05.10 revision submitted (two rounds of peer review during this time)
2023.05.16 accepted

No specific time given for the revision, as soon as possible. Reminder every two weeks.

animalyao 2023-05-16

23 days later for review, looking forward to good results.

xfl 2023-05-16

The initial assessment and distribution of editing indeed are slow, but the efficiency of the editors will increase after submission for review.

animalyao 2023-05-11

You sent it for review and received feedback in just 8 days, while it took me 14 days to submit and enter the editing stage. It has been in the editor's hands for 5 days and is still there. It's so slow.

xfl 2023-05-04

2023.3.6 submitted
2023.3.13 with editor
2023.3.21 in peer review
2023.3.29 major revision (Three reviewers, one minor revision, two major revisions)
2023.4.20 resubmitted/in peer review
2023.4.24 with editor
2023.4.25 in peer review (Reviewed twice in the second round, a bit strange)
2023.4.27 major revision (Reviewer 3 had two minor issues, editor requested major revisions); revised on the same day
2023.4.28 in peer review
2023.5.4 accepted
The review process was fast, and the reviewers were serious and responsible. I hope MH (the journal) will continue to improve and be listed in the first district of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

rainday 2023-04-25

2023.03.04 Submitted to journal;
2023.04.03 Major revision;
2023.04.11 Revised;
2023.04.13 Accepted.
First RSC flagship journal paper in my academic career, hoping for the continuous success of Materials Horizons journal!!!

echo1994wf 2023-02-10

The submission to AEM was rejected during the review process, with the reviewer showing malicious intent. They rejected the manuscript over a small issue with just one sentence, probably because it was not within their circle and they didn't want it to pass.

We quickly submitted the manuscript to MH instead.

Timeline: Submission - 17-Jan-2023; Major revision - 25-Jan-2023; Revised manuscript submitted - 06-Feb-2023; Acceptance - 10-Feb-2023. We were also invited for the back cover.

Personally, I believe MH is on par with ACS Nano and AFM. I hope RSC manages to operate well and increase its impact factor.

花柳朵 2023-01-07

The larger the volume of publications, the less favorable it is for the increase of impact factor.

GCmayjay 2022-12-26

A good journal will not be ignored, it has returned to the top tier, celebrate!

梧桐树-静 2022-10-14

I have been in evaluation for 10 days, how many days have you been with the editor?

梧桐树-静 2022-10-14

It has been 10 days and it is still under evaluation.

fengye008 2022-09-08

04-08-22 submit
24-08-22 revision
01-09-22 accept
Summary article, very nice suggestions for modification, high editing efficiency!

Sugar 2022-08-21

This magazine is so difficult to submit to. The difficulty level is no lower than AFM, and it's even in the second tier. I really can't believe the classification system of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

222很尴尬 2022-08-12

Yes, the journal is a good journal, but it lacks management. Although it is not as good as CEJ, Nano Energy, and EnSM from Elsevier, it feels slightly better. It should be slightly worse or about the same as AFM and ACS nano.

polymer2020 2022-05-25

This magazine of such high difficulty should be at the same level as AFM and ACS Nano. Now it's in the second quartile, really...

喜欢雨天的晴天先生 2022-05-09

2021.12.06 submitted
2022.01.24 major revision
2022.04.24 revision submitted
2022.04.29 accepted
RSC, please be more careful. It's disappointing to see such a high-demand journal being downgraded to a second-tier.

星湖 2022-02-28

ACS Nano has not been submitted for review, and it is recommended to transfer to its subsidiary journal in the second district. It feels a bit of a loss, so I finally decided to try MH.
2021.12.29 Submission
2022.1.13 Major Revision, it took less than half a month from submission to receiving comments from reviewers, and all three reviewers recognized the innovation of this paper and were knowledgeable in the field.
2022.2.13 a revision has been submitted, and it was reviewed on the second day after receiving the revised manuscript. The Lunar New Year holiday in between delayed the process. If it wasn't for my advisor's timely reminder and assistance in addressing each question, it would have been further delayed.
2022.2.28 Accept
MH has a high positioning and requires a high level of innovation. It requires a separate submission of a concept statement to explain the innovation. I hope it will continue to improve. Despite the low publication volume, it is almost surpassed by small and JMCA.

一片黄叶 2021-12-21

Why has it been classified as Zone 2? Oh, luckily I didn't submit to this journal, otherwise I wouldn't be able to graduate...