Reviews for "Macromolecules"

Review this journal Show journal page
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
Macromolecules 2.7
weeks		 4.7
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2020
Motivation: We got 2 reviews and one of them was less detailed and the reviewer recommended to publish the paper after revision elsewhere. But second reviewer gave very thorough comments and good suggestions for revision and proofread our manuscript as well. So the editor decided to give us opportunity to revise. After major revision the manuscript was sent to the same reviewers and they had additional comments for revision. the manuscript was quickly accepted after the second revision.
Macromolecules n/a n/a 10.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: I was given the option to transfer my submission to ACS Omega, but declined the opportunity.
Macromolecules 1.0
weeks		 2.0
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2016
Motivation: The turn around on this paper was very very fast.
Macromolecules 4.0
weeks		 5.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2017
Macromolecules 7.0
weeks		 8.9
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2019
Macromolecules 5.4
weeks		 5.9
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2019
Motivation: Reviewers had fairly good knowledge about the field and raised comments that helped to improve the manuscript.
Macromolecules 4.7
weeks		 8.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2018
Macromolecules 7.6
weeks		 7.7
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2018
Macromolecules 4.3
weeks		 5.1
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted 2018
Motivation: Editor handling our manuscript was very nice. He himself reviewed the manuscript and suggested some changes, which reviewers could not figure out.
Macromolecules 4.3
weeks		 4.6
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2016
Motivation: The review process was fast and the comments were easy to implement.