Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
4.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial process was smoother. One of the reviewer was bit sloppy but overall good input to improve the manuscript. Very happy with the outcome!
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editorial decision was very quick, and since the editor considered the manuscript to be more relevant to a sister journal, a transfer offer was made by the editor
10.3 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
7.9 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The immediate rejection took 2 weeks
3.7 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Accepted
6.7 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Unlike with some other publications, the editor actually gave useful & helpful input and made informed decisions particularly in first round of review. Unfortunate process glitch lead to entirely unnecessary third revision round and thus a few weeks delay, however (resubmit with zero changes). After two recent poor experiences, I was positively surprised by ACS copyediting.
4.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The time of submission to first review is approx. 1 month. Second revision reviews might come in approx. a month after submission. Final decision comes in a few weeks time. Overall, the quality of review is excellent. Definitely helps improving the paper.
0.6 weeks
0.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: I received three comments and the editor’s rejection decision. The comments of the two reviews are very positive. One is direct publishing. The third comment suggested, "do not publish". The third reviewer's report was wrong and ignorant, but the editor accepted his/her suggestion despite my appeal.
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: Handling was quick. I received four reviews with the decision to reject the manuscript. Two reviews were very positive. The third review seemed neutral, but in conclusion, the reviewer suggested do not publish our work. The fourth review was overly destructive. The reviewer was rather out of the field. His / her report was simply wrong and ignorant.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers comments recieved within ~ 6 weeks. Very kind reviewers comments with only slight editorial changes. However, took a while to process slight editorial changes, edits to proofs and open access. There is no way to check if your paper has made it passed the editorial stage prior to reviewers comments.
6.4 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor suggested transferring the manuscript to the sister's journal (ACS Applied Electronic Materials).
3.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was suggested to be published in a more specialized journal.
6.4 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.6 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
7.3 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The process for this manuscript took slightly longer than what we've experienced earlier and expected, but all in all we have no complaints. The reviews were to the point and the communications with the editorial office were fast and smooth.
6.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
5.0 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The process was satisfactory in practically all ways; our only major issue with the ACS system is that it is quite prone to browser errors and after the manuscript has been submitted, the only status visible is "Submitted to Editorial Office" independent of whether it is being assessed by the editor or the reviewers.
8.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: I am a great fan of how quickly everything was handled by ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. My only beef with the ACS system is that there is no feedback on whether your manuscript is still with the editor or under review.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted