swsh 2021-12-05

20211008 submitted - Submitted on October 8, 2021.
20211012 in peer review - Under peer review on October 12, 2021.
20211029 minor revision - Minor revision requested on October 29, 2021.
20211109 resubmitted - Resubmitted on November 9, 2021.
20211118 accept - Accepted on November 18, 2021.

远航abc 2021-11-25

20210915 submitted to journal
20210924 In peer review
20211117 Minor Revision
20211122 Resubmitted
20211124 Accept

The reviewers are quite professional, except that the review process took slightly longer.

张智 2021-10-15

Application of organic electrode materials on the negative electrode of lithium-ion batteries.
August 22: Submitted for review.
September 14: Received reviewer comments. Reviewer 1 suggests minor revisions and has three questions; Reviewer 2 suggests major revisions and has seven questions; Reviewer 3 suggests major revisions and has four questions. Conducted a small experiment and added simple theoretical calculations.
September 30: Responded to reviewer comments.
October 8: Received reviewer comments. Reviewers 1 and 3 agree to accept the paper (Recommendation: Publish as is; no revisions needed.), but Reviewer 2 feels that my answers to previous questions were not clear enough and raises three more questions.
October 12: Responded to reviewer 2's comments.
October 14: Paper accepted.
From submission to publication, it took about two months, which is relatively fast. Of course, I conducted comprehensive testing, covering all necessary aspects. This is my first paper during my graduate studies, and although the journal is average, the submission process went smoothly, making me happy.

雨小夏 2021-09-29

Submit ACS sus. Later, because I leaned more towards material preparation and energy applications, I suggest submitting to ACS aem. Transfer was done on August 1st, and two days later it was sent for review. Two weeks later, I received the reviewer's comments. The reviewer raised over 10 questions in total, but they were difficult to answer. I supplemented with additional experiments and analysis, and submitted the revised manuscript within the 21-day revision period. After one week of the second review, I received a pre-acceptance email, but some formatting adjustments were required. I quickly made the necessary revisions and returned it on the same day, receiving acceptance on Mid-Autumn Festival Day, the 21st. The journal's speed was still very fast. Thanks to Editor Kanishka Biswas and best wishes for the development of the journal!

taotaowa 2021-09-18

Posted on July 20th to ACS AMI, edited and suggested to transfer to ACS AEM on July 26th. Received reviewer comments on August 19th, with two reviewers providing one minor revision, one major revision, and one rejection. The reviewers raised a total of over ten questions, showing their expertise in the field. Additionally, the editor also raised five to six questions and supplemented data through experiments. The revised manuscript was submitted on August 31st and accepted on September 18th.

老船长划皮水 2021-09-17

The review process for articles on energetic materials is usually longer. On April 21st, the article was submitted to ACS AMI. The editor suggested transferring it to ACS AEM. On June 2nd, the review comments were received. There were four reviewers, one minor revision, two major revisions, and one rejection. The reviewers provided a total of fifty-six questions, showing their expertise in the field. A 35-page response to the review comments was prepared. The revised version was submitted on August 21st. On September 16th, the second review comments were received, consisting of one major revision and two minor revisions, mainly related to language issues. The reviewers were very responsible in pointing out obvious language errors. Admiration and respect were given. Since the language was not native, the revisions were entrusted to English graduate students from another department. The revisions were completed on September 17th, and now awaiting the boss's response, preparing for the final submission.

我要做个小太阳 2021-09-17

What does "under Review" mean? It has been 2 weeks already.

ennlemon 2021-07-28

May 11th - Submission
June 9th - Review comments
June 22nd - Return
July 13th - Second review comments
July 16th - Return
July 26th - Acceptance

了哎 2021-07-17

Submitted on May 30th.
First review comments on July 6th, with two reviewers, both minor revisions, the issues were very professional, replied with eight pages.
Submitted the revised manuscript on the afternoon of July 15th and received an acceptance email on the night of July 16th.
The speed was very fast, thanks to the editor and reviewers.

zhang_1 2021-07-12

Return with the comments for review within one month, very professionally.
Reply with the comments for review within three weeks.
Acceptance will be given after one week.
Thanks to the editor and reviewers.

heergefu 2021-07-02

Give the second review comments approximately three weeks after major repairs.

huey 2021-07-01

5.11 Submission
6.2 Received the first round of review comments, gave a major revision, and had less than a month to make the changes. Three reviewers, one of whom had sharp comments.
6.20 Resubmission
6.30 Asked me to add a Table of Contents (originally, it meant graphical abstract...) and then it can be accepted.
7.1 Accepted
Overall, it was quite fast. Today, the Impact Factor also increased to around 6.
Engaging in research in the field of chemical energy storage may be relatively rare for editors.

penguin 2021-06-29

In plain terms, the difficulty of this journal does not match its impact factor and status. The difficulty of this journal is comparable to that of JPS. Manuscripts rejected by this journal have been submitted to Carbon and even accepted by JPS. Initially, they were rejected by ACS AMI and then transferred. I sincerely do not recommend submitting to this journal. It has an impact factor of 4+, and is classified as a third-tier journal in the field of materials. It is really not impressive. It was a failed investment.

john585 2021-06-10

05/01, submitted
05/03, editor assigned
05/05, in peer review
05/27, major revision
06/05, revision submitted
06/09, accepted
A good article that went through some ups and downs, but finally submitted to this one, luckily it went smoothly! Hoping the journal keeps getting better.

KAIKAIK 2021-05-25

Hello, may I ask when will there be a response regarding the major repair suggestions?

heergefu 2021-03-31

Review Speed: Medium
Review Quality: Personally, I feel it is more professional than reviewers of the same level. The reviewers are very professional, and there were around thirty questions from three reviewers.

超级老快 2021-03-22

Posted in August 2020, a total of three reviewers were involved. One of the reviewers made four revisions, taking half a year. It was accepted by the end of March 2021 and felt quite professional. Currently, the Impact Factor is 5.9, and it is estimated to increase by +2 compared to last year. It seems like a good investment choice.

gumphope 2021-03-03

Excuse me, experts: How can I check the instant impact factor? Scopus only has CiteScore, not the impact factor.

penguin 2021-02-22

At the end of 2018, I published an article in this journal. The current impact factor is only 5.89, and it is increasing too slowly. Additionally, the journal receives a large number of submissions. In its first year, there were already 800+ submissions, and in the second year, it exceeded 1000+. Furthermore, they rarely accept review articles, which affects their impact factor. This seems to be a common problem among ACS journals. However, top journals like JACS and Nano Letters do not prioritize impact factor, but for journals like ACS AEM, it is still important to consider. In my opinion, this journal does not have a high investment value. On the other hand, journals of the same level, such as Materials Today Energy, choose a different route with lower publication volume and higher proportion of review articles. Currently, MTE has an instant impact factor of 7.27, increasing by approximately 2.0 points each year. Journal of Energy Chemistry is also on a similar trajectory, increasing by 2 points each year. At the time, I also submitted another article to JEC, which had a similar quality to this one. At that time, JEC had an impact factor of around 5.0, but now its instant impact factor has reached 9.38 and is in the top category of chemistry. In conclusion, although I have published an article in this journal, I do not recommend it to others due to its slow growth, high submission volume, and lack of emphasis on impact factor. Over time, the gap between this journal and others will widen.

论文论文 2021-02-03

The work of the journal is very efficient, and the review cycle is very fast.