ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS

期刊名
ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS

ADV FUNCT MATER

ISSN / eISSN
1616-301X / 1616-3028
目标和范围
Firmly established as a top-tier materials science journal, Advanced Functional Materials reports breakthrough research in all aspects of materials science, including nanotechnology, chemistry, physics, and biology every week.

Advanced Functional Materials is known for its rapid and fair peer review, quality content, and high impact, making it the first choice of the international materials science community. Topics: materials science, nanotechnology, liquid crystals, semiconductors, superconductors, optics, lasers, sensors, porous materials, light emitting materials, ceramics, biological materials, magnetic materials, thin films, colloids, Advanced, Materials, energy materials.
研究方向

化学:综合

物理化学

材料科学:综合

CiteScore
27.90 查看趋势图
CiteScore 学科排名
类别 分区 排名
Physics and Astronomy - Condensed Matter Physics Q1 #7/423
Physics and Astronomy - General Materials Science Q1 #11/453
Physics and Astronomy - Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials Q1 #7/271
Physics and Astronomy - Electrochemistry Q1 #2/54
Physics and Astronomy - Biomaterials Q1 #4/125
Physics and Astronomy - General Chemistry Q1 #12/407
Web of Science 核心合集
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
Indexed -
类别 (Journal Citation Reports 2023) 分区
CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE Q1
CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL - SCIE Q1
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE Q1
NANOSCIENCE & NANOTECHNOLOGY - SCIE Q1
PHYSICS, APPLIED - SCIE Q1
PHYSICS, CONDENSED MATTER - SCIE Q1
H-index
269
出版国家或地区
GERMANY
出版商
Wiley-VCH Verlag
出版周期
Weekly
出版年份
2001
年文章数
2161
Open Access
NO
通讯方式
WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH, PO BOX 10 11 61, WEINHEIM, GERMANY, D-69451
认证评论
注: 认证评论选取于全球各个学术评论平台和社交媒体。
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.
2021-11-23
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.
2023-06-10

Create your own webinar

Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.

Create Now

Ask a Question. Answer a Question.

Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.

Get Started