7.24 submission, on the same day the editor was assigned; 8.17 the review results received. There were five reviewers, two rejected the manuscript and questioned the innovations, and the editor rejected the manuscript but allowed a resubmission. 9.27 resubmission. We replied to the reviewers’ questions one by one, refuted the questions about innovations raised by the reviewers, and added a lot of experiments. There were more than 50 pages of response letter and more than 15,000 words. It was resubmitted, and the editor returned it to the original reviewers. 11.3 one reviewer agreed to accept it, one only had one problem but required a major revision, and the other one required a minor revision. 11.17 returned the response to the reviewers; 11.20 required a format modification, and it was provisionally accepted; 11.21 resubmitted; 11.23 After four months, it finally got accepted. Thanks to the editor Kovalenko’s approval. He is super nice. Thanks to the reviewers for their constructive comments, and I wish CM better! Thanks again to the editor for the opportunity!

(3) Thank | JY

8.26, submission; 9.24, review comments were returned, one month and a half was given for major revision; 10.4, the revision submitted; 10.7, the comments of second review were given; 10.27, the revision submitted; 11.2, accepted, format was revised; 11.5, online.

(23) Thank | mc2_e

It is the second article in my PhD. An article was accepted in last year. I submitted it on May 26. On June 1, I was noticed to submit it after revising the format, and adding the preparation characterization into the text. The review results came out on July 23, there were one rejection, one major revision and two minor revisions, the editor asked to make major revision. I submitted the revised manuscript on August 13. A reply was received on August 19, it was ready to be accepted and the format should be revised. It was formally accepted on August 20. The second review was really fast.

(29) Thank | jhxu

ACS journals are very popular and CM is no exception. I submitted two manuscripts. The first one took about one month from submission until its return to me with a recommendation for revision. After the revision, I submitted again and it was immediately accepted. The second one happened over a holiday, so it took a month and a half to be returned. The editor’s opinion was that the paper scored relatively low on innovation. In fact, this article had comprehensive data, but the truth was, the innovation component wasn’t very strong. The editor-in-chief is American, and people in North America feel that the requirements for innovation are relatively high.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

I would like to ask, is it normal for a submission to be in "Under Review" status for CM? Has it been submitted for review or not yet?

(0) Thank | 王飞

2025.03.11 提交
03.13 拒绝
建议转移

(0) Thank | Southern penguin

It makes sense, but in recent years, the templates of Angew AM PNAS and several other publications have been increasingly imitated, causing a widening gap.

(0) Thank | 摸鱼王

Excuse me, which editor is it?

(0) Thank | outlier11

Excuse me, which editor are you referring to?

(0) Thank | outlier11

The first few questions are not a big deal. Even the few journals under Cell are rarely classified into the third tier. The third tier is basically small NC SA JACS Angew AM PNAS PRL. The fifth tier is mostly industry journals, and the ones you mentioned are not well recognized. The more comprehensive journals usually only reach the fourth tier at most. The classification of the fifth tier depends on the department and field you are in, for example, polymers would look at Macromolecules, biomaterials at Biomaterials JCR, analytical chemistry at AC, and so on.

(0) Thank | +和+

You are right, the quality of papers on CM is absolutely classic. Some journals can be ignored in terms of their impact factor, such as 1/2/3/4. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) ranking in part 5 and the remaining journals do have some reference value. There are not many domestic journals that match both quality and impact factor.

(0) Thank | Klose

The process is a bit long. Submission on 6.2, major revision on 7.19, minor revision on 8.18, acceptance on 9.20, proofreading on 10.7. The publication is estimated to be on 10.10, which is over four months. The French editors are rather slow.

(0) Thank | hyug

This journal is the next JPCL and CC.

(0) Thank | 笨蛋水凝胶啊

If this journal continues to decline like this, it will probably soon become a 5-point journal, and quickly become a third-tier journal. The requirements are high, but it is only a second-tier journal, not even as good as a first-tier journal.

(0) Thank | LabXu

Submitted on 4.12
In peer review on 4.19
Major revision on 5.18
Accepted on 5.31
The editing process was very fast

(0) Thank | Flashfish

My submission will be reviewed in two weeks

(0) Thank | sec of2

Submission is due in two weeks, but it seems like it's my editor who's dragging behind

(0) Thank | sec of2

Have you submitted the paper for review after more than 10 days of preparation?

(0) Thank | MOFG

How long does it usually take for a commercial to be submitted for approval?

(0) Thank | MOFG

The professional journal has a somewhat sluggish impact factor, but it is still quite challenging and not very fast-paced

(13) Thank | labiabia

Everything else is fine, but let's not include membrane science with a self-citation rate of 20

(0) Thank | 王召意

I want to ask, if the editor asks for the revised submission to be sent back, do I need to go through the review process again? How long will it take?

(0) Thank | 余小梅

Article Three of the CM, hope it gets better and better.
Received: August 16, 2023
Accepted: October 9, 2023
Revised: October 8, 2023
Approximately two weeks after submitting the manuscript, feedback will be received. Minor revisions should be completed within two weeks after receiving the feedback

(6) Thank | superpig

No wonder the impact factor is declining, the editor is being unresponsive, and it has been more than 10 days without any review

(42) Thank | sec of

Is the status of the external audit under review?

(0) Thank | sciyu