It was a review article. The submission cycle lasted for an entire year before and after. It got rejected four times: at the first time, the format was not qualified; at the second time, the length was too long; at the third time, it was rejected, with 5 pages of opinion were given, which were very pertinent. The main problem was that the content was confusing. Then we rebutted successfully. The editor asked us to resubmit the manuscript. At the fifth time, the manuscript was submitted, and a major revision was required. 6 pages of comments, including the editor’s, were given, but the comments were very positive, especially the multi-orientation comments on the mechanism. It was finally accepted after two rounds of revision. On the whole, the current processing speed of manuscript is slightly slow. Fortunately, the editors and reviewers are very professional, and it is unbelievable for them to be able to ask so many questions. After several rounds of revisions, I have benefited a lot and the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved. Hope it gets better and better.

(6) Thank | Chris-K

Garbage Journal, every paper is like a small project, and not too much innovation. I review several papers as a reviewer. The cite score really confuse people. If you have good work. Try to submit to more professional journal such as material and design or acta material.

(37) Thank | WT_Y

2020.2.9, with journal; 2020.2.10, with editor; 2020.2.20, under review; 2020.3.13, required reviews completed; 2020.3.26, major revision; 2020.4.12, revision submitted to journal; 2020.4.24, with editor; 2020.4.26, under review; 2020.5.6, required reviews completed; 2020.5.7, major revision; 2020.5.13, revision submitted to journal; 2020.5.13, under review; 2020.6.7, decision in process; 2020.6.7, accepted. It was revised for two rounds. There were five reviewers in the first review, adding up to more than 40 questions. In the second review, four reviewers accepted it, and another one was strict who required further revision. I responded honestly and seriously for another round. It took 4 months, and it was accepted smoothly!

(20) Thank | gcfsuper

5.21 提交到期刊
5.24 审稿中
7.1 修订
7.20 修订提交到期刊
7.29 完成所需的审稿
等待结果中

Translation:
5.21 Submit to journal
5.24 Under review
7.1 Revise
7.20 Revision submit to journal
7.29 Required reviews completed
Awaiting results

(1) Thank | Y_STAR

You wrote it in the wrong place, it should be jmpt, not am.

(0) Thank | 随风潜入夜-2

The review process was very fast, with the reviewers providing their comments in less than a month. However, the manuscript received a "Major revision" decision. While the comments from the two reviewers were simple, the editor-in-chief personally reviewed the manuscript and provided 14 major suggestions for revisions, which were deemed too extensive. As a result, the request for revision was rejected and the decision was made to withdraw the manuscript and submit it to another journal.

(0) Thank | 随风潜入夜-2

Are you only two reviewers?

(0) Thank | ailv

My experience is within two days...

(0) Thank | 梵高先生

How long does it take for the three reviewers to complete the required reviews and provide their feedback?

(0) Thank | finger circle

Starting a new piece, this time it's going slowly. It has been a month and a half since submission, and it has been under review all this time. Four reviewers have accepted the review, and currently only two have completed it.

(0) Thank | 东

I currently only have two reviewers accepting the review, feeling frustrated.

(0) Thank | ailv

Three reviewers. Both the first and second reviews are conducted by three reviewers.

(0) Thank | 梵高先生

Excuse me, are there two reviewers in the end?

(0) Thank | ailv

5.30 submitted
6.2 with editor
There has been no news so far. This journal is so slow.

(0) Thank | ailv

Yes. It was delivered only after a month.

(0) Thank | 梵高先生

Does it take a month for the editor to submit for review?

(0) Thank | ailv

Submitted at the end of March, accepted in early May.
Received feedback from three reviewers within one month: major revision, rejection, minor revision. Editor provided modifications, with a two-week revision period.
Received feedback on revisions in about 10 days: minor revision, acceptance, acceptance. Editor requested minor revision.
Accepted within 3 days after resubmission.
The speed of Small AM is still relatively fast, within a month and a half.

(0) Thank | 东

Hello, does AM require three review opinions? Is it written on the journal's official website?

(0) Thank | 科研猛兽

The submission was made in August 2024, with 15 reviewers during the review process. 3 were accepted, 2 provided feedback within a month. The journal required input from 3 reviewers to make a decision. The manuscript went through multiple rounds of review until January 2025 when the third reviewer provided final feedback. The editor provided revisions within 4 weeks. In February 2025, the manuscript was resubmitted for review, with 2 reviewers recommending acceptance and the third asking additional questions. The editor provided revisions within 2 weeks. In March, the manuscript was resubmitted for a second round of revisions, with the third reviewer recommending acceptance. The editorial team provided their suggestions and revisions were made within 2 weeks. In April, the manuscript was resubmitted for a third round of revisions and was finally accepted. The whole process took 8 months, but the road to publication was long and challenging.

(0) Thank | 寒江孤雁

The paper was submitted for editing quickly, and it was sent for review within a week. The first review took a bit long, almost 3 months, mainly because it was difficult to find reviewers, and it took nearly two months to find the third reviewer. The reviewers are all peers and quite professional based on their comments.

2024-10-16 Submitted to Journal
2024-10-20 Under review
2025-1-12 Revision requested (Three reviewers provided mostly positive feedback, two suggesting minor revisions and one suggesting major revisions; editor allowed 20 days for revisions)
2025-2-2 Revision submitted to journal
2025-2-2 Under review
2025-2-17 Required reviews completed (Three reviewers)
2025-2-21 Accepted (Ultimately, only two reviewer comments were received, both of which recommended acceptance)

(0) Thank | zpzpzp

Submitted at the end of June, accepted at the end of October. 
Three rounds of revisions were made in between. 
The first round of revisions included 20 comments from three reviewers. 
The second round was accepted by two reviewers, with one raising a minor issue. 
After the third round of revisions, the submission was finally accepted. 
The slow pace was mainly due to difficulty in finding reviewers.

(0) Thank | Pudge

May I ask if the majority of the applications you mentioned being rejected for half a year were rejected after resubmission for repair, or were they rejected after the initial review?

(0) Thank | 依依呀呀

May I ask if the majority of the rejections you mentioned were after rework or were they rejected in the first review?

(0) Thank | 依依呀呀

I would like to ask, what is the maximum acceptable rate of similarity for this journal?

(0) Thank | 巫师弟

Received in the early morning today, feeling a bit excited. The journal has high requirements, and I personally think it's not easy. There is a certain requirement for innovation, and the paper needs to be carefully polished. The first review had 5 reviewers, and feedback was given after two months. I replied with nearly forty pages. Fortunately, there was no need for a second review. The waiting time for the editor's feedback after the paper review is still quite long.

2024-12-03 Accept
2024-11-14 Required reviews completed (three reviewers)
2024-11-01 Under review
2024-09-17 Revision submitted to journal
2024-08-30 Revise (five reviewers)
2024-07-13 Under review
2024-06-28 Submitted to Journal

(0) Thank | 海清粉