Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: They suggested an automated transfer to the sister journal Advanced Engineering Materials. However, it's worth noting that (1) Advanced Engineering Materials is ranked much (8/415 vs. 146/415) lower than Advanced Materials in the Web of Knowledge and that (2) it is an open-access journal with an APC of US$4330.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2020
Motivation: The handling was fast. One reviewer highly recommended it with lots of compliments. The other one criticized it, was skeptical, and said there are no clinical and in vivo data yet, which is not entirely true.
2.6 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2021
Motivation: Invited review. Excellent handling and fast. However, receiving the proofs and formatted PDF for review took a very long time.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: It takes almost two weeks for them to reject without external review. I feel it is too much (and sadly it happens all the time).
3.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The only problem is they do not update you on the status of your manuscript for the moment you submit it, it just stayed at "under consideration", which made us feel that it was still under editorial review. Being a prestigious journal, we thought it needed more time for the editor to make the decision to send it out to reviewers, for all that we know after close to 3 weeks, we received the reviewers' comment, then did we realize it has passed editorial review. Overall, they are very fast for my case, 3 weeks for the first review, was given 10 days to complete the first revision and the second revision came in 14 days time. After that, the editor mentioned that it was just a minor revision and if we addressed it, he will give us a final decision as soon as possible. Almost immediately when after submitting our minor revision, the editor came back within one working day to accept our paper for post-production. Kudos!
2.4 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2019
Motivation: Very satisfied with the publication process at Advanced Materials. Very efficient handling of the manuscript, prompt responses between authors and editors, and reasonable revision requests to the manuscript. Would submit future work for publication here.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Rejected
2018
2.9 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Editorial policy was used to finally judge the paper. Requesting a large animal study to support an already extensive work is unreasonable.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
3.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2016
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2016
Motivation: review process was very quick. We received comments from 2 reviewer's. One of the reviewer suggested relevant changes to the manuscript and second reviewer was more or less naive with his comments, who simply rejected the manuscript, without going through the text thoroughly. Therefore editor decided to reject our manuscript for possible publication in Advanced Materials.
2.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015