Motivation: The process for this manuscript took slightly longer than what we've experienced earlier and expected, but all in all we have no complaints. Motivation: The manuscript was suggested to be published in a more specialized journal. Motivation: The editor suggested transferring the manuscript to the sister's journal (ACS Applied Electronic Materials). There is no way to check if your paper has made it passed the editorial stage prior to reviewers comments. However, took a while to process slight editorial changes, edits to proofs and open access. Very kind reviewers comments with only slight editorial changes. Motivation: Reviewers comments recieved within ~ 6 weeks. His / her report was simply wrong and ignorant. The reviewer was rather out of the field. The fourth review was overly destructive. The third review seemed neutral, but in conclusion, the reviewer suggested do not publish our work. I received four reviews with the decision to reject the manuscript. The third reviewer's report was wrong and ignorant, but the editor accepted his/her suggestion despite my appeal. The third comment suggested, "do not publish". The comments of the two reviews are very positive. Motivation: I received three comments and the editor’s rejection decision. Overall, the quality of review is excellent. Final decision comes in a few weeks time. Second revision reviews might come in approx. Motivation: The time of submission to first review is approx. After two recent poor experiences, I was positively surprised by ACS copyediting.
Unfortunate process glitch lead to entirely unnecessary third revision round and thus a few weeks delay, however (resubmit with zero changes). Motivation: Unlike with some other publications, the editor actually gave useful & helpful input and made informed decisions particularly in first round of review. Motivation: The immediate rejection took 2 weeks
0 kommentar(er)
