ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

The biggest regret of this journal is that the impact factor did not break 10. Let's keep striving!
The process of submitting to this journal was bumpy. In the first round, there were four reviewers: one minor revision, two major revisions, and one rejection. The editor suggested a major revision and another editor advised reducing the weight because there were similar descriptions to my previous articles in terms of methodology, exceeding 4% duplication in a single section.
After the first round of revisions, three reviewers agreed to accept the suggested modifications, but the one who rejected it requested a major revision and provided many subjective comments.
After the second round of revisions, the only reviewer stated that they did not receive a satisfactory response and requested another major revision.
After the third round of revisions, the same modification suggestions as the first round were repeated, and another major revision was requested.
After the fourth round of revisions, it was mentioned that the drawing technique of the electrochemical performance graph did not attract readers' interest, so another major revision was requested.
After the fifth round of revisions, I wrote a long response, stating the significance and advantages of my research, the points that would attract readers, specific graph indicators, etc. I used a lot of diplomacy in my response, but then turned the tables and listed the reviewer's questionable wording and doubts about basic principles, and in turn questioned their familiarity with the field of electrochemistry. In the end, I concluded by saying that they could question my research content but not my passion for scientific research.
In the end, I don't know if the editor sent it to the reviewer, but it was accepted anyway.
Each review process took one month, very punctual. The whole process lasted for six months and was accepted a few days before the Lunar New Year.

In the past two years, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has once again mercilessly downgraded the ranking of this journal, causing it to lose its last bit of confidence in being a top journal.

Thirdly, despite not meeting the quality standards, the journal started blindly expanding its publication. Currently, including its own journal, it has expanded to eight journals. Unlike AM (AXM), Small NC (Communications XX), Materials Today (Materials Today XX), etc., these journals all started expanding their territory around the main journal after successfully occupying a leading position in the field. However, at that time, AMI itself had not established a solid position in the field of materials journals, which resulted in the newly launched subsidiary journals having an awkward position. No matter how they develop, everyone will perceive their positioning to be lower than AMI, and their psychological support for them will be even weaker. In addition, with the new journal classification this year, except for Nano and Polymer being in Zone 2, all the other subsidiary journals are in Zone 3, with none of them being in the Bio or Sci zones. It is feared that it will be difficult for them to form a positive cycle like other top journal subsidiaries. Once this inherent perception is formed, it will be difficult to change in the future.

In summary, as a place where everyone's research efforts are gathered, a journal can only thrive if the operating team has an advanced editorial concept and strong operational methods. As a former author, I hope that the AMI series can strive to change its shortcomings and enhance its influence, and become a true top journal as soon as possible in this era where various journals are rising.

Note: Some terms may require further contextual understanding for accurate translation.