Rockstone 2023-08-05

Excuse me, is the first rejection a direct rejection from the editor or a rejection from the reviewer? Based on the dates, it seems like it was rejected by the editor.

May I ask how you successfully appealed against the editor's rejection? Thank you!

sj1 2023-07-07

Because the reviewer unreasonably rejected the submission, I appealed and the editor agreed to reconsider it.

Nanjun 2023-06-06

2023.4.19 submitted
2023.4.27-5.18 with editor
2023.5.19 under review
6.12 under review
7.5 under review

Translated:
2023.4.19 submitted
2023.4.27-5.18 with editor
2023.5.19 under review
6.12 under review
7.5 under review

种花家tc 2023-04-26

2023-4-01 submitted
2023-4-09 with editor
2023-4-19 under review
2023-4-22 required reviews completed
The current status has not changed, feeling a bit anxious.

usoleme 2023-04-26

What is the current situation of the original poster now?

LUXIXIXI 2023-04-17

Can you resubmit after being rejected?

等待最让人心焦 2023-04-02

2023-3-13 submitted;
2023-3-18 With Editor;
2023-4-02 Still With Editor, waiting anxiously, hope it can be sent for review, if rejected, please do it quickly.

sj1 2023-02-14

2.9 Submitted to Journal
2.14 with editor
2.14 reject

2.27 resubmit
3.6 under review
3.13 under review
4.5 required reviews completed
4.5 major revision
7.3 with editor
7.6 under review

lucky-hhh 2022-12-19

08.09 submit
08.15 with editor
08.27 under review
09.23 under review
09.29 under review
10.22 under review
10.31 under review
12.03 required reviews completed
12.05 minor revision
12.14 submit
12.19 accept

zzn1573 2022-12-12

How long does it take to hear back from the editor after submitting? I see in the comments that everyone hears back within a week, and there is a high possibility of being rejected during this time. Is it possible to be rejected even after being with the editor? Could someone who has experienced this kindly answer? T-T

PhD小僧 2022-12-03

Posted for 4 months, first review... I don't want to count the time anymore... Can I ask for the identity of the editing reviewer? This person must be avoided in the future.

没事看文章 2022-11-28

Second review took over two months and was rejected. The vague issue recognized within the ceramic industry has been dispersed.

没事看文章 2022-11-22

The first trial took a little over a month, and the second trial for repairs has already been two months...

没事看文章 2022-11-22

Is everything so slow lately? Mine has also been two months.

PhD小僧 2022-11-10

Nov 10 under review

PhD小僧 2022-10-29

October 29th still under review, the review process has exceeded 70 days, I give up.

PhD小僧 2022-10-16

Doctor's time on a work about functional thin film materials is painfully slow in the review process.

Automata 2022-10-12

Three reviewers, two of them recommended, asked questions that were not difficult to answer, but the third reviewer believed that my work was meaningless. It seems that this reviewer did not understand my work content and only had heard of my research direction. They strongly recommended rejecting the paper. In the first round of editing, a major revision was given. In the second round, the other two reviewers recommended accepting it directly, but the third reviewer still insisted on their opinion. The editor gave a symbolic minor revision, and after making some insignificant changes, the paper was accepted.

My research direction is particularly niche, and it is usually not easy to publish in a more comprehensive journal outside of this field. I didn't have high hopes before submitting this time, I just wanted to give it a try. But I am very happy to have received a good result, and I am also very grateful to the editor for recognizing my work.

tuanzi 2022-09-24

After submitting, I gave it to revise the language. After resubmitting with the editor, it has been ten days.

方方哥 2022-09-06

Slow speed, it has been in the hands of the editor for half a month without any progress, always with the editor.

大宝贝666 2022-08-22

2022.05.24 submit
2022.05.30 with editor
2022.06.02 under review
2022.06.28 major revise requiring re-review
2022.07.26 with editor
2022.07.27 under review
2022.08.15 revise (only written as "revise" in the system, reviewer's comment is minor revise)
2022.08.20 with editor (second round of revised manuscript submission)
2022.08.22 accept

I am delighted to have finally hit the target of publishing in the top journal for metallic structural materials, Acta, just as my PhD is coming to an end. The paper focuses on shape memory alloys and 3D printing. Previously, I submitted shorter versions to the sub-journals of N and S, but they were rejected consecutively. After converting it into a longer article and submitting to Acta, it took three months for the paper to be assigned to a reviewer. The reviewer pushed me to conduct four or five additional experiments and addressed the discussions that were not clear or were being avoided. Although it was a torturous process, I have to thank the reviewer for significantly improving the quality of the paper and filling many gaps.

I am grateful to Acta and hope it continues to thrive. I wish for its Impact Factor to surpass 10 soon.

SCI 2022-07-06

Attached submission process:
2.03 submit
2.08 with editor
2.25 under review
4.15 major review
6.01 minor review
6.16 accept

SCI 2022-07-06

I submitted a manuscript in the field of metallurgy in February 2022. It went through a major revision and a minor review, and was successfully published in June. Overall, I feel that it is quite difficult to submit traditional metal materials to Acta. Many manuscripts are filtered out by the editor and chief editor. The reviewers are mostly experts in the field and very professional. If fortunate enough to receive an opportunity for editing, it indeed enhances the overall quality of the article. This year, Acta's impact factor has reached 9.2, and it is expected to exceed 10 next year. I wish Acta continued success and hope that all the contributors can achieve great results!

ZZUO 2022-06-30

First, I tried submitting to NC but got rejected instantly, so I turned to ACTA.
Submitted on March 15, 2022.
10 days later, it was sent for review, and it took about 25 days to receive feedback. There were two reviewers who provided over 30 comments. The reviewers from ACTA are truly the most professional I have ever encountered. They paid close attention to every detail in such a long article. Although this is the basic quality of a reviewer, it is really rare to find nowadays.
After three weeks of revisions, I couldn't afford to be careless with the revised manuscript, so I wrote a total of 28 pages. Surprisingly, it took a month to receive feedback. There were only a few minor grammar issues. After revising it within three days, it was accepted a few days later.
I would like to express my gratitude to Greg Rohrer for editing, as the editing process with ACTA was the most challenging. Besides the quality of the article, it is also important to encounter an editor who is familiar with your field. For another short piece of mine, which discovered a new mechanism, I submitted it to Scripta. However, the editor rejected it directly, even though I felt the quality of the article was good. Sometimes, when an editor says it's not good enough, it simply isn't.

Rockstone 2022-06-06

The second piece, after going through two rounds of repairs, was finally accepted. Two articles in a year, and a bountiful harvest!

Guy-LJF 2022-04-03

2022.01.08 submit - Submitted on January 8, 2022.
2022.01.21 under review - Under review since January 21, 2022.
2022.03.17 under review （第二个审稿人没审稿，找第三个）- Still under review as the second reviewer has not reviewed it, seeking a third reviewer.
2022.03.27 rcc - Returned with suggested revisions on March 27, 2022.
2022.04.01 major revise - Major revisions required on April 1, 2022.

Rockstone 2022-03-25

The first article has been revised and accepted.
The second article is still struggling and being brainstormed...

潇洒哥 2022-03-14

May I ask the original poster, if the manuscript passes the process of editing, will it definitely be sent for external review by the handling editor? Or does the handling editor need to further review the paper?

KK1120 2022-03-08

ACTA is truly a rare find for those involved in studying the mechanical properties of metal materials, especially with the emergence of the new journal Materialia. Apart from the necessary level of innovation, what is even more important is a thorough and systematic analysis. From the initial submission to final acceptance, it took nearly a year, with three rounds of revisions. Each response letter was over 5000 words, and each submission was right up against the deadline.

2021.2.1: Submitted
2021.3.18: Major revision (Round 1)
2021.5.2: Revisions submitted
2021.7.6: Major revision (Round 2)
2021.9.4: Revisions submitted
2021.11.3: Major revision (Round 3)
2022.1.2: Revisions submitted
2022.1.10: Acceptance (Happy Birthday)

Rockstone 2022-03-07

Many years ago, I won an article, which took 9 months.
After that, I experienced years of instant rejections.
Last year, I won another article, and the first and second reviews took about 2 months each, which is considered acceptable.
Last year, I submitted two articles, and both are currently under revision.
Paper #1
Dec 30 Submitted
Jan 05 With editor
Jan 10 Under review
Feb 07 Major revision requiring re-review by one reviewer, the issue is actually not significant, just need to add experiments
Mar 02 With editor
Mar 03 Under review
March 26 Accepted
Overall, this paper was quite fast.

Paper #2
Dec 30 Submitted
Jan 05 With editor
Jan 06 Under review
Feb 27 Required reviews completed
Mar 02 Major revision requiring re-review
April 10 Under review
May 02 Revised
May 15 Submitted
May 17 Accepted