Reviews for "Acta Materialia"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Acta Materialia 3.9
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: One reviewer did not appear to have read the manuscript in detail and had generic comments. The second reviewer, however, provided relevant constructive criticism, which we consider fair and has helped strengthen the quality of the material.
Acta Materialia 4.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2012
Motivation: Judging on the general style of reviewer comments, he had a good knowledge of martensitic transformations in the iron-based alloys. His remarks concerned some shortcomings in presentation of experimental data.
Acta Materialia 8.1
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The remarks of the first reviewer were critical and reasonable. It was not difficult to revise the manuscript. Generally, I think that the accepted practice with one reviewer is not sufficient for a correct estimation of submitted manuscripts.
Acta Materialia 8.3
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Acta Materialia 3.7
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Acta Materialia 2.4
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013