Small

2019.12.6, submitted to AFM; 2020.12.16, rejected, it was recommended to transfer to Small or Small Methods. Because I need to graduate in this year, I conservatively chose Small; 2020.12.17, submitted to Small after revision; 2020.1.10, revision submitted, both reviewers agree to accept it after modification; 2020.1.17, uploaded after modification; 2020.1.22, accepted. It is the second paper accepted by Small, which is in the electrochemistry direction. The editor has a very good attitude.

(19) Thank | Rco-life

The manuscript was submitted on October 7, and it came back on November 8. The editor gave 10 days for revision, and all the comments of three reviewers were positive, thinking that the article was innovative, and all of them recommended it to be published on this journal. A total of nearly 20 comments were raised, which were pertinent. The revision was submitted on the evening of November 13, the review comments were replied in detail, and the discussion of the article was supplemented. The notice was received on November 18, and it was accepted. The efficiency was high, and the editor was nice. It is recommendable.

(6) Thank | happyH

The article was submitted to AEM on May 5th, recommended to transfer to Small on May 18th, transferred on May 20th. I received major revision decision with 40 comments on July 12th and was required to return the revision in ten days. The comments from the three reviewers were very positive, but many questions were asked, and a lot of experiments were required to add. I wrote to the editorial board to request extending the deadline by a month on July 20th. The agreement was received on the 21st. The revision was submitted on August 1st and accepted on August 30th. Editorial board sent a letter inviting a cover image on September 1st. We agreed after discussing with the boss. We received a proof on September 7th. We submitted the proof, wrote to the editor board and submitted the cover on September 8th. They were online on September 13th. The article has just been published and I hope your attention and citation (DOI: 10.1002/smll.201902605)

(7) Thank | 尼桑

2018.7.9 Submission, 7.25 first opinion, two reviewers, one praised the manuscript, one asked for minor revisions, two questions asked, one requiring a major overhaul.  Twenty-two questions, one of which also contained many small problems. Time from first edit to overhaul, ten days. After a week of rework, the 8.21 review returned with the second version. The first reviewer was no problem. The second reviewer praised it and raised eight questions. The editor asked for a five-day overhaul, mainly to change the SI. After four days, I returned to revising the document, and on 9.5, I sent back the third version. The reviewer praised it and said that they could accept it. I asked two very small questions. The editor asked for a five-day minor revision, and I returned it after one day, and they received it on 9.11. I have to say that the questions raised by the second reviewer were very strange.  It may be that the research direction is inconsistent. In general, two months for the entire process is pretty fast.

(3) Thank | Holmes

The same day sent a four-week reply.2 minor repairs, 10 days period, 1 point after the experiment was replenished.The efficiency is very high, the editor is very careful, but there is a word error in the typesetting picture, the underline is not seen haha.The concept and structure of the new accept ratio is high, but small is more and more biased in engineering applications, I wish IF as soon as possible to break 10

(0) Thank | 小陆老师

Well, I am AEM on July 9th, the 11th to refuse, the editor suggested to switch to smll and another, CSC?A journal of more than 7 o'clock, I switched to the small on July 19th, very fast, August 6th gave a review opinion, a rejection, Tucao I treat the article is not enough, two other minor repairs, 22No. Return to the revised draft, accepted on the 27th, small is now so fast, basically all the processes can be submitted within 2 months.

(6) Thank | 新吧唧

Submitted in early May, a major overhaul in June, a small revision in early July, and received

(0) Thank | lavendermoon@126.com

20171023 contribution, has not seen the return opinion, very anxious.Two months later, the reviewers, four reviewers, two minor repairs, one overhaul, and one reviewer asked a few questions and returned two weeks later.Later, the language did not meet the requirements, giving a week of retouching, 20180206 received.It is the first work done by the independent doctor during the doctoral period. It means that the time may be slower, or if you want to find arbitration in the middle, you may want to notify the author.I wish you better and better.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

This year's rise is very fast, continue to maintain, break 10 next year!

(0) Thank | youxinren1987

The first trial was 19 days, and the two reviewers had a total of 7 small questions, which were given 10 days to modify and received 25 days after the repair.

(0) Thank | goodboy

The first trial was 19 days, and the two reviewers had a total of 7 small questions, which were given 10 days to modify and received 25 days after the repair.

(0) Thank | goodboy

Reviewing for 53 days, a reviewer grasped the key questions, so it was revised three times and the editor was very patient.The first overhaul was 10 days, then 5 days each time.

(0) Thank | gumo

投AM, the editor suggested to switch to small, 50 days after the transfer to return to the review comments, a VIP directly received, a rejection, the editor should find a third reviewer, Xiao Xiu received!The editor gave a major repair for ten days.The second reviewer’s suggestion, which was seriously considered, was justified and replied.Return to the comments, edited directly after two hours!Self-feeling editors and reviewers are pretty good!The second reviewer's opinion is very professional, and may also be poorly expressed in English. Therefore, he has revised the points he mentioned and described it clearly. In general, his article is still greatly improved.of!I hope that Small is getting better and better, breaking 9 this year!

(1) Thank | youxinren1987

First trial for 53 days, a minor repair, a major repair, the editor gave the overhaul, and repaired after three weeks. After 9 days of the second trial, the editor wrote back directly!I feel that the reviewers and editors who are met are quite nice, that is, the review is slow, and it took more than three months from the select to receive.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

has been under consideration after submitting the manuscript, replying to the review comments after 3 weeks, minor repair (10 days), after re-submitment, the editor is not satisfied with the language, and gave a minor repair (5 days), focusing onModify the language problem, carefully modify and return, 2 days to receive, the overall 1 month time, the speed is very fast

(0) Thank | libhlk@163.com

has been paying attention to the evaluation of this journal for a long time. Last year, two reviewers of AM were accepted by a VIP, a major repair, and the editor gave a re-submitment. Later, they made a two-month experiment and then selectd.Going out, I didn't expect the second reviewer to change our article and finally toss it for a long time. It lasted for two or three months. AM editor suggested transferring to small, and receiving it after 13 days.I hope this year breaks 10

(3) Thank | 1003122119@cugb.edu.cn

First trial for 35 days, one manuscript, one minor repair, editor to find arbitration, arbitration to receive directly, edit to overhaul, overhaul for 15 days, return, receive the next day, the entire submission process no more than 2Month, I like this journal very much, I wish this year IF break 10.

(2) Thank | 冬阳

Upset, 6 days in the third trial, Revised Manuscript Submitted unchanged

(1) Thank | lee

first-instance 52 days, waiting for an upset.The two reviewers minor repair, the editor gave the overhaul, repaired three days later, and received it in two days.The overall feeling is slower.

(2) Thank | L

first trial50 days, 7 days of repair, the result is unknown, pray!

(0) Thank | lee

11February 23 submission, there is currently no message waiting for hope in

(0) Thank | wows

not a few upstairs said so fast, one and a half months, or under consideratiob

(3) Thank | lee

A paper on the mechanism of macrophage phagocytosis of nano-dust, submitted for 27 days, and now there is no news, I don't know if the character does not conform to the style of this journal, 忐忑中...

(0) Thank | Lenvicol

Reviewing the draft for almost 21 days, giving 10 days of minor repair, still quite happy

(0) Thank | yanshiqiang@dicp.ac.cn

First trial 1.5 months, second trial, or 1.5 months

(0) Thank | force