Guy-LJF 2022-02-28

2022.01.08 제출 (Submitted on 2022.01.08)
2022.01.21 심사 중 (Under review as of 2022.01.21)

VivalavidaS 2022-01-14

Excuse me! May I ask if your editorial comments on the manuscript are suggesting major revisions or minor revisions? How long does it usually take for the review process to complete after resubmission?

Acta_Mater_killer 2022-01-14

The following aspects of the science and engineering of inorganic materials are of particular interest:
(i) Cutting-edge experiments and theory as they relate to the understanding of the properties.

Acta_Mater_killer 2022-01-14

Before, I never dared to think, only feeling that the papers within the field were all long texts with high quality.

Until I joined a group that has published nearly 20 papers in Acta, using the world's top instruments and analysis methods.

Submitted in late September, received feedback after 3 months, and accepted after a week of response.

D.H.L 2021-11-30

Excuse me, is there a character limit for the abstract of the original manuscript in Acta Mater?

kimo 2021-10-21

After waiting for so long, I can finally share my experience of submitting an article. The timeline is as follows:

2021.6.1: Submitted to the journal
2021.6.9: Under the editor's review (Received information from the responsible editor, assigned article number)
2021.6.23: Under review
2021.7.11: Required reviews completed
2021.7.18: Major revisions requiring re-review (One reviewer, 25 questions, some quite challenging)
2021.8.24: Under the editor's review (This is the status after resubmission)
2021.9.9: Under review
2021.10.8: Required reviews completed
2021.10.21: Accepted

The whole process took nearly five months, almost missing all opportunities for scholarships and awards. The first review result actually felt quite fast, while the second review took almost two months. I thought there was no hope, but unexpectedly, everything turned out well in the end. It is my first SCI (Science Citation Index) article and also my dream journal. It can be considered a fulfilling achievement for my fascination with Acta as a material scientist!

5757 2021-10-14

Still editing for more than 20 days, and then rejected for no reason at all. It's a waste of time!

叶不知秋 2021-10-12

My submission was reviewed for a week, and it took more than half a month to receive feedback, which was ultimately rejected. There were two reviewers, one of whom had a friendly attitude and asked a few simple questions. The other reviewer seemed to have a competitive relationship with my research group and did not raise any concerns about the experimental aspect. Instead, they repeatedly focused on a few minor issues. It's quite upsetting to have my first graduate paper rejected like this, so I plan to appeal and resubmit it.

VivalavidaS 2021-09-23

Hello, may I ask how long it took for you to receive the revised message?

VivalavidaS 2021-09-23

Hello, I would like to ask how long did it take for you to receive the revision notification from the time of manuscript review?

VivalavidaS 2021-09-23

Hello, may I ask how long it took for you to receive the revision message from the review board for your paper?

zhou.xl 2021-09-05

Finally, the result was given on September 5th, and I decided to switch to MATERIALIA!!! Reviewer #2 said that after minor revisions, it can be published. Reviewer #1 didn't express any opinions, so they must be supportive, probably a colleague. However, there was an additional Reviewer #3 (probably a new reviewer, maybe from the editorial team or their research group), who found a flaw in the lack of accurate composition analysis (3DAP). They claimed that a similar study had been conducted by the editorial team before. In order to consider the bigger picture, I had no choice but to accept the transfer. Furthermore, our research group still has pending submissions, especially since our supervisor is also listed as a corresponding author for another article that is currently being revised (the main corresponding author being another prominent researcher in our institution). Currently, I feel exhausted and frustrated with research. This kind of situation seems to be quite common! It is important to be cautious when appealing and resubmitting to ACTA MATERIALIA, especially when the editor suggests transferring to MATERIALIA!

zhou.xl 2021-09-05

I have never posted before, but today I will write a bit to commemorate it! In early 2021, I submitted my work, and within less than a month, Reviewer #1 supported it, while Reviewer #2 claimed that the data was insufficient to support it. The editor asked me to transfer it to MATERIALIA, but I refused!

Then I conducted experiments for over a month, filled with various fantasies. I decided to extend my graduation deadline because it is crucial for a Ph.D. in metallurgy.

After making the necessary changes, I resubmitted it in July. First, I sent it to the general email, but there was no response for half a month. Then I sent it to the responsible editor's email, but waited for a week without any reply. I forcefully resubmitted it, and within a few days, the responsible editor said it was acceptable and gave me the opportunity to resubmit it, but it had to be sent to the original reviewers!

I submitted it on August 11th, it was sent for review on August 13th, and the review was completed on August 30th, which was quite fast! However, the editor did not provide any results, and I am anxiously waiting, having a bad feeling about it!

shengli2025 2021-07-20

Hello. Could you please share the name of your article? I would like scholars in the metallurgical field to learn from it. I rarely come across articles in the field of metallurgy.

wpfnichol 2021-05-16

The processes of these two are actually quite similar, both require major revisions and then re-review. Re-review is more serious, meaning that the editor believes the author needs to make very careful revisions and additional experiments (not just simple characterization) are essential, but the reviewers remain the same.

zzz1234 2021-05-12

Hello, I would like to ask what is the difference between "major revision needing re-review" and "major revision"? Is "major revision needing re-review" more serious?

wpfnichol 2021-05-05

My article is in the traditional metal materials field:
2020.11.26 submitted
2020.12.07 under review
2021.01.11 major revision requiring re-review
One reviewer, and it seems to have been sent to a prominent figure in the field, wrote a 2-page Word document, but there was only one specific request for revision. The rest were suggestions and evaluations. The reviewer's opinion was minor revisions, but the editor gave a major revision + re-review to show importance.
2021.03.08 revision submitted
Although the reviewer did not explicitly request major revisions, I still added some experiments. I also included some previously conducted experimental results during the revision process and added a lot of discussions. Some unimportant discussions were moved to the supplementary materials.
2021.04.02 accept

墨枭袅 2021-03-09

Which research group are you from?