卷翻天 2023-01-17

This journal is quite impressive. ACS AMI has been running for many years and is still in the 2nd tier of materials. It reached the 2nd tier just in its second year of being ranked. On the other hand, Wiley's AMI has dropped to the 3rd tier this year. It's becoming more and more difficult to understand.

Fang Yu 2023-01-15

The quality of the articles in this journal is very good, and they accept materials, physics, electronics, chemistry, and biology. The new journal, which was published just two years ago, has already become a Material Science 2nd quartile journal. It is gaining momentum and I feel that it will be at least as good as ACS AMI in the future. I plan to invest and give it a try.

yxtk 2023-01-13

The content is fine, but in terms of grammar, for example, "one effective way to" should be changed to "an effective way to"; there are missing spaces in some places; etc. In order to save money...

crystal212 2023-01-13

Has the vehicle been repaired four times? Is it rejected only because of the English language?

yxtk 2023-01-12

3-4 reviewers, the first round of reviewers had no issues, editor Kourosh Kalantar-Zadeh recommended native speaker service + supplementary cover, but it was not agreed upon. After the fourth round, it was rejected.

Yolkyolk 2023-01-12

After taking a look at this magazine, the content is actually quite good. The only downside is the name, which is too disadvantageous. At first glance, it is clearly a sub-publication of AMI. AMI itself has a bad reputation, being a giant dumpster with over 6000 articles published annually. For outsiders who see this magazine, even if it is made well, it is inevitably going to be considered inferior to AMI, especially with a bunch of miscellaneous garbage sub-publications like electronic, polymer, engineering, and so on. Who can tell which is which? Unless it changes its name and separates itself from AMI's system, its ultimate fate will only be a garbage dumpster, and just a sub-dumpster at that.

xc6511 2023-01-12

You're really amazing. Take out the JACS you mentioned and let's have a look. Stop looking down on this and that.

Optication 2023-01-11

The official position of ACS on this journal is that it is on par with AMI, not a supplement or subsidiary of AMI. The review requirements are all within the top 20% in the field. Recently, the quality of the articles in this journal has improved significantly, and it is not entirely dominated by domestic journals like AMI. Many of the articles in this journal are from top American universities.

MIK3Z 2023-01-11

I would like to ask, as I am also one of the three reviewers, with two being junior and one being senior. When you accept, do all three reviewers need to agree or is it sufficient for two to agree?

腊鸡 2023-01-10

Haha, ACS AMI, to put it bluntly, is just a recycling bin. How well can its offspring be? But surprisingly, this journal with an impact factor of around 6 is also in the second quartile, alongside Nanoscale Horizons and JMCA. It's worth considering submitting to this journal if other options are not available.

opinionist 2023-01-10

The analysis is in place. Many experts have started publishing articles on it, indicating a promising future. Currently, there are some articles with high quality, but there is also a considerable amount of shallow content, roughly about half of them. The journal style feels different from AMI, with purely theoretical, computational, and synthetic articles being published a lot. The level is significantly higher than other sub-journals of AMI, and the editorial board is also of high level. The operating team should be quite aggressive. If in the future, the nanotechnology articles that used to be published in ACS Nano, NL, JACS, and CM all go to this journal, its influence might surpass that of AMI.

Larras 2023-01-09

Upgrading to the 2nd tier in the Materials Science category is not easy given the serious situation of being included in the Materials category. Currently, the real-time impact factor is comparable to Nanoscale, and the latest impact factor is expected to be around 7-8, making it one of the most successful journals in the newly released AMI series. However, the proportion of Chinese authors is relatively low compared to AMI, and the level of friendliness is questionable. Currently, AMI no longer accepts articles that have been rejected by journals like ACS Nano, and Nanoscale is mainly responsible for the nanotechnology field. The downside is that there are a lot of reviewers, about 3-4, and most of the editors are industry leaders, with a decent handling efficiency. The review deadline is 3 weeks, and if submitting a manuscript, it takes about 5 weeks to receive feedback.

crystal212 2022-12-31

Hello, may I ask if you have any news?

今隐其名 2022-12-12

The following text translates to English as:
"The manuscript was transferred from ACS AMI. The opinions from ACS AMI were two major revisions and one rejection. The editor gave the rejection decision. After transferring to ACS ANI, the editor asked to respond to the comments raised by the previous reviewers. I replied with approximately twenty pages of responses. After more than half a month, the opinions from ACS ANI came back. One suggested minor revision, one suggested direct acceptance, and one suggested major revision. I completed the revisions in two weeks, including adding a few experiments and addressing over twenty pages of comments. I sent it back in the morning, and in the afternoon, I was notified that it was accepted. Overall, the process went smoothly. I am grateful to the editor and the reviewers. It is my first SCI publication."

fei-braveman 2022-11-11

Translated text: On August 29, 2022, it was transferred from ACS AMI. On September 23, it was returned with suggestions for modification. One rejection, major revision, and two minor revisions were given. The editor allowed a major revision with a 21-day deadline and requested a 2-week extension. On October 22, the revised version (r1) was submitted. Until now, no response has been received, and it is still under review.

小諶 2022-10-27

2022.8.31      submitted
2022.9.1        with editor
2022.9.2        in peer review
2022.10.7      major revision
2022.10.24    revise submitted
2022.10.27    accepted

The editor is diligent and responsible, and the reviewers' questions are also very professional. I feel good about it. It is my first SCI paper. Keep up the good work~

臭咸鱼 2022-10-18

Submitted on August 25th;
Received first-round comments on September 23rd, with 4 reviewers. 2 reviewers suggested direct publication, 1 suggested minor revisions before publication, and another rejected the submission. The editor requested major revisions within a 21-day deadline;
Revised manuscript submitted on October 14th;
Accepted on October 17th.
ACS, as always, demonstrated high efficiency and quality. Although it is a relatively new journal, the quality of the articles is unquestionable. The editor's handling of the manuscript was very efficient and decisive. My revised manuscript was also accepted without any further revisions. I have high hopes for this journal!

Aurora_fighting 2022-10-11

6.28 Submission
7.20 Sent a reminder for submission
8.12 Received feedback, four reviewers, editor willing to accept after major revisions
8.31 Received feedback for revision 1
9.20 Received feedback, minor revisions
9.28 Received feedback for revision 2
9.30 Accepted

无糖拿铁 2022-10-03

Editor + 4 reviewers
Within 3 days, revisions were made and submitted. The next day after the revisions were made, it was accepted for publication. The overall cycle from submission to acceptance was approximately 40 days.

CQDs 2022-09-25

Indeed. Either accept it or reject it. It's better to find another journal than to resubmit.

CQDs 2022-09-25

Transfer to ACS Zone 3 fee-based journals was rejected, so I transferred to the Royal Society of Chemistry's New Journal of Chemistry (NJC) and it has been published.

Submitted: December 15, 2021
Accepted: January 21, 2022
First published: January 22, 2022

LanyuLc 2022-09-06

Overall, it's a little over one month.

LanyuLc 2022-09-06

7.18 submitted to journal
7.19 with editor
7.20 under review
8.9 major revision (20 days)
8.26 revised
8.30 minor revision
9.1 revised
9.1 accepted

shawfang 2022-09-01

May I ask if there is a requirement for proofreading articles when taking the second course?

上交学者 2022-08-27

This journal editor is very conscientious and responsible. They will provide comments. There is one editor and four reviewers, with dozens of comments. The reply letter is longer than the original text. After two revisions, it was accepted for publication. This ACS journal has great potential. In just two years of publication, its impact factor has exceeded 6. According to the current IF, it is estimated to be around 7.5 or higher next year.

LucyLucyLucyLU 2022-08-24

06.22 submission
07.21 major revision Three big and one small
08.18 submission
08.23 accept
Overall, the processing efficiency is very high. There were nearly 30 comments from the editor, copy editor, and reviewers. The reviewers' questions made the article more comprehensive. Thank you for accepting ANM.

爱你璐璐 2022-08-10

6.03 submitted
7.16 Major revision on July 16th with three reviewers, two major and one minor. The review process was thorough, and three small experiments were added.
7.28 Revisions requested for the first time.
8.3 Minor revision required to reduce the word count. The editorial department used ithenticate for plagiarism check, including the references. After two days of revisions, it was not possible to meet the requirement of less than 30% similarity. Therefore, I sent an inquiry letter and received a new report that excluded the references. I will proceed with the word reduction based on this report.
8.7 Revisions requested for the second time.
8.10 Accepted.

lyfree2022 2022-08-10

After submitting my manuscript to ACS ANI, it was rejected. There were three reviewers, with two recommending rejection and one suggesting major revisions. I was advised to submit to ACS Omega instead, but I did not agree. I made the necessary modifications according to the reviewers' comments and submitted the revised manuscript to the same journal. However, one of the reviewers who previously recommended rejection still found the novelty of the research insufficient and rejected the manuscript again. The other two reviewers requested minor revisions, and a newly added reviewer also recommended rejection. In the end, the editor decided to reject the manuscript. Therefore, if the rejection comments are unfavorable, it is not recommended to choose ACS journals as it can be quite troublesome, requiring individual responses to each previous comment.

shawfang 2022-08-02

7.13 Submitted
7.14 Associate Editor Assigned
7.15 Under review
8.1 major revision- 4 reviewers, 1 minor revision and 3 major revisions, but in reality it is 2 minor revisions and 2 major revisions. One reviewer provided a minor revision, which was mistakenly categorized as a major revision by the system. They raised 18 questions.

Kkkkkkkkk77 2022-08-01

Additional comment:
After submitting the second revised manuscript on July 29th at noon, I received acceptance in the afternoon of the same day. However, I thought there would be a second review, so I didn't check it until just now. I just realized it was accepted on the 29th! The speed is really impressive, it took a total of 30 days from submission to acceptance. Thank you ACS ANM for accommodating me. I wish you continued success.