Reviews for "Macromolecules"
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. |