Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.1 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2023
Motivation: Acta Mat is one of the top journals in the field of materials science. It took immense efforts, patience and work to finally get it accepted.
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: After almost 5 weeks of the article status being "with editor", I wrote a polite question to the editor, asking what the current progress is. Within the same day, I got a response that after an "initial evaluation" the article was found not fit for the journal. I feel that initial evaluation should not take five weeks and that the editor just did not bother to look for external reviewers and wanted the paper off their hands.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: An editorial review should take less time. The work submitted is in the field of Materials Informatics, which is a very fast moving field. 18 days is too long for an editorial rejection.
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The first-round review took 15 weeks but the reviewer's comments were very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. After sending out the rebuttal letter to the editor, we received the accepted decision within one day.
15.1 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
2019
Motivation: The initial review took an excessively long time (nearly four months) but the quality of the review was reasonably high. Additionally, after responding to the reviewer's comments, the editor quickly informed us of the accepted decision.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
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.
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
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.
8.1 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
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.
8.3 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2016
3.7 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Accepted
2015
2.4 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
2013