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
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acta Materialia n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Acta Materialia 3.9
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
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
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
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
Acta Materialia 3.7
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Acta Materialia 2.4
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted