ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

2015 5.12 contribution, 5.13 distribution editing, 6.11 received review comments minor repair, both reviewers are minor repairs, opinions are not big, the editor gave some non-sciencfic suggestions, veryQuickly change the 6.13 and return to the revised draft.6.17 The editor overhaul said that the repetition rate is too high, 30%.Seriously change each of the reds, and send the revised draft in 6.25.7.8 Receive, Just Accepted Online.7.16 Received Proof.Summary: AMI editors are very responsible, very serious, and generally not directly available for review is promising.In addition, ACS journals have strict requirements for checking, and it is recommended that you first check the weight.ACS AMI 14 years IF has risen to 6.7, I really wish the journal better and better!

(3) Thank | yuxiaohuitju@163.com

2015 5.15 contribution5.19 Assignment Edit6.20 Received review comments, the first reviewer minor repair, 5 questions; the second overhaul, 5 questions; the third minor repair, change the language, three small questions.7.10 step back716 acceptedSummary: AMI editors are highly praised, very responsible, can try more than the select, generally receive the revised comments is not the manuscript carefully revised seriously will be heavy!I wish the ACS AMI will be better and better, and the editors will be healthy and have more articles!!!

(3) Thank | 863587236@qq.com

Feedback on January 9, 2015;On February 12, 2015, four reviewers, three overhauls, one minor repair for 32 questions, and the editors re-submitted for a period of 180 days;Return to the manuscript on May 4, 2015.During the month, I spent a month to supplement the data and write a reply letter. The last article was 5,400 words, and the reply was written with 7,000 words and the number of pages was 30 pages.On June 8, 2015, the second trial news, the editor said that the reviewer is most satisfactory, the No. 1 reviewer no longer has problems, the third reviewer 5 questions minor repair, the fourth reviewer 2Overhaul of the problem, editing and overhaul, the deadline is 21 days;On the evening of June 16, 2015, I sent a revised draft on the spot. During the week, I spent a week carefully analyzing the reviewer's intentions and wrote a 15-page reply letter.Received on June 17, 2015!The editor is Dr. T. Randall Lee, like it!Very careful and very patient.

(1) Thank | weiyongzzu@163.com

responsive carbon dot fluorescent material, selected Wang Shu editor, went to Fan Chunhai editor.Less than a week was rejected, saying that the mechanism of fluorescent materials was not sufficiently deep based on the opinions of the two editors.I feel that I am too tired to do research now. The article is very careful, the workload is also very large, and there are also innovative ones.The biased article says that the mechanism research is not thorough enough, and the mechanism of carbon dots is still controversial.I don’t know where to go.

(3) Thank | lunix

We got a minor review 10 days after submission. The revised manuscript was re-submitted 4 days later and got accepted within 24 h.

(1) Thank | Arlington

2014-8-252014-10-20 A minor repair, a major overhaul, editorial overhaul, return to retrial within 21 days2014-11.10 Stepping on the reissue2014-11-17 Receive

(3) Thank | Anonymous

Height is fast, editors and reviewers are very responsibleSubmitted on 2013-12-17, reviewed on January 7th, 14th, accepted in early MarchGood journal, manuscript quality is good, IF is bullish

(2) Thank | stargay

WhyMy submission is so slow. I chose ET Kang. I submitted it on January 26th. It’s almost two months now. The first-instance opinion hasn’t returned yet. Is it a tragedy?It’s too unreasonable to refuse directly in two months. I can’t graduate.

(3) Thank | Anonymous

1Submission No.9, assigned to ET Kang February 7th first-instance opinion, 4 reviewers, 1 minor repair 3 overhaul, the editor gave the overhaul on February 26 to submit the revised draft, because 4The reviewers have submitted 4-5 comments, one by one, and found that they have written 10 pages on March 6th.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Reviewers are very professional, editors are responsible, efficiencyVery high.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

2012.11.26Submission, 12.3 is assigned the ID number, and it is reviewed by the editorial department. 2013.1.21 Returning to the overhaul reviewer has put forward many professional opinions, which is very helpful for the improvement of the quality of the article 2013.2.4Upload and modify to engage in 2013.2.5 accept direct hanging online, 2.27 page number to see the journal.The editing efficiency is too high is my second article in ACS APPLIED MATERIALS.The requirements for innovation are not very high, but it feels that the requirements for the article will be higher and higher, because the previous submission has not been reviewed by the editorial department.It used to be a monthly journal. In 2013, it was changed into a half-monthly journal.The volume of publications is also growing.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

I submitted the manuscript for 12.29 in 12 years, 1.31 received the review comments, two minor repairs, but to supplement the data, I had already returned home at the time, and the editor gave me two weeks of modification time.Finally, I wrote a letter to the editor in chief, requesting that the repair be postponed. The editor is very good, and I promised that the revised manuscript will be revised in the first month and will be received the next day!After three days, I hang up the net!I really admire the efficiency of ACS!User-friendly, efficient, this is my second ACS applied materials & interfaces.I don't know if the submission system has a submission or more than this. It may be easier to have it.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

2012.12.1 Submission 2013.1.8 First review, three reviewers, one minor repair, two major repairs, the editor gave the overhaul 2013.1.22 upload revised manuscript 2013.2.5 receiving journals very efficient,The reviewer gave a lot of professional opinions. After careful revision, I feel that the article grade has indeed improved a lot.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The review speed of this journal can be said to be very impressive, and the editor is very responsible.The article I received yesterday, on November 26th, submitted out the review comments on December 23, and returned to the four reviewers. After three minor repairs, one refused to accept the manuscript (rejected without serious attention).After the revision was submitted on January 15th, the editor reminded him to re-edit it. On January 31st, after submitting again, it was received directly on February 5.The impact factor should be stabilized.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

2012.12.11Submission, 2013.01.11 received the review comments, three minor repairs, officially received after the repair. 2013.01.22.Articles require a certain amount of work, and innovative requirements are not too high.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Thesis Title: Significantly Enhanced Energy Output from 3D Ordered Macroporous Structured Fe2O3/Al Nanothermite Film Document Type: letterDOI: 10.1021/am302815y Contribution Experience: Submission on November 23, Review on December 12Return, No. 29 repaired, No. 31 received.Judging opinion: A minor repair, two major overhaul submission feelings: very high efficiency, very professional review opinions, self-correction in the process of modification.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Now this journal is difficult to select, we groupI think that the best-written article, the deputy editor directly rejected it, just ~

(0) Thank | Anonymous

ACS applied materials & interfaces. How long does this journal generally last?1.Submitted to Editorial Office After receiving the select, it only received a confirmation letter from the editorial department, but did not receive a confirmation letter from the editor.What is the status now?The editor has not started to deal with it yet?It’s been 7 days... Come over and let me know?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

After three weeks of overhaul, I haven't heard yet

(1) Thank | Anonymous

, very good advice, consider it.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

9The manuscript was submitted on the 12th of the month, and the review comments were received on November 2nd.Three reviewers, one minor repair, two overhauls.Two of the reviewers asked me to quote their documents, dizzy.Submit it carefully after 15th revision.Accepted on the 19th.Two weeks from submission to acceptance of a share

(0) Thank | Anonymous

selectd for a week, how is Submitted to Editorial Office?Isn't ACS on the status of under review?Is it directly from Submitted to Editorial Office to return to modify?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

entered Zone 1 this year, a good journal, ACS journal is a potential stock.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

4 Reviewers 2 overhauls, 2 refusals, E.T. Kang gave a smash.However, looking at the opinions of the reviewers, there is a Korean reviewer who is obviously confused.The opinions of the other three people can be answered.It took a month to reply the reviewer's comments.After submiting again, more than 20 days later, the editor said that the revised manuscript was sent to three other people except Koreans.The result of the two said no need to modify, receive.The other one said Xiao Xiu.Also raised the problem of two egg pains.As it turns out, it is not good to select for ACS.Recommended reviewer editors are not used.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Two reviewers, one is minor repair and the other is rejection.The editor refused, and the review comments submitted by the person who suggested the rejection of the manuscript felt that it was rejected.The review time is 1 month and 20 days.

(0) Thank | Anonymous