7.12, submitted; 07.22, with editor; 08.12, in peer review; 09.01, major revision; 09.11, a revision has been submitted; 09.12, in peer review; 09.15, accepted. It was faster than expected, although it took one month for the article from submission, initial review to sending for review; it took one month before the article was sent to the reviewers. But the efficiency of reviewers was still quite fast. A total of four reviewers were invited, and nearly 30 questions were asked; the editor required major revision, and nearly 20 pages of responses were written. But I didn't expect it would be accepted three days after the submission of major revised manuscript, including a weekend during the period. It took exactly 2 months in total. Thank a lot to the editor and the reviewers, for your efficient work.

(11) Thank | leafarc

By April 11, 2020, real-time impact factor of 2019 is 32648/4874=6.698; the impact factor of 2019 will be officially released in June, the deviation will not be very large. The articles in 2019 should be included almost, and the final impact factor is 6.7–6.8. As I expected before, this impact factor will continue to decline. I do not recommend that you submit to this journal. Other material journals are flourishing. But this journal is slipping. Considering that many people here are stakeholders, it is estimated that many people will step on me. RSC's entire organization is not good at operating. The impact factors of its CC and Nanoscale are dropping every year. The impact factor of top publication Materials Horizons will drop by 1 this year, from 14 to 13 or so.

(55) Thank | penguin

2019.9.16, submitted; 9.17, with editor; 9.22, in peer review; 10.12, major revision; 10.21, revision submitted; 11.01 accepted. It was with editor the next day after submission. It took five or six days to find reviewers. About 20 days after sending for review, major revision was notified. There were two reviewers, one reviewer requested to make major revision and raised 9 questions, which were all small questions rather than doubts. The other reviewer requested to make major revision and raised 5 questions, one of which was a skeptical question. Fortunately, there is no need to supplement experiments. It took 4 days for conception, 5 days for reply, and 2 days for checking. It was with editor for 4 days after resubmission, and then it was sent to the reviewers. A total of 11 days later, email was received; it showed that the manuscript was only sent to the second reviewer for review. I took about 45 days in total, which was very efficient. I wish Nanoscale to be better.

(0) Thank | 洗洗睡吧

The review process took about 4 months. I learned a lot throughout the process. The overall result was good.

(6) Thank | 我要飞翔

Was this journal once a district? I remember it used to be quite impressive.

(0) Thank | 和气之财

The speed is too slow, it has been a month and a half already, and it is still in peer review.

(0) Thank | happy小邸123

July 22 In peer review

(0) Thank | cross-z

Up to now, with the editor, I feel like my temperament has been worn out.

(0) Thank | cross-z

So far, with editor.

(0) Thank | cross-z

7.4 with editor

(0) Thank | cross-z

The application was submitted on June 30th, and it is still at the initial assessment stage. I'm going crazy, why are the British people so slow?

(0) Thank | cross-z

Hello, how long after accepting will he receive the proofreading notification from the school?

(0) Thank | @@@@

Returning to District Two, the impact factor is estimated to be 5.3 this year. Now it's become the Iron Third District.

(0) Thank | nnsz107

Pretty fast, smoothly caught up with graduation.
25.4.7 submitted
4.12 with editor
4.24 under review
5.7 major revise
5.17 revise
5.22 accept
Total time spent 45 days, soft-hearted god.

(0) Thank | Char

05.24 accepted
Very slow, poor user experience, and a reviewer even disappeared. The editor is also dragging the process, and now the journal has a very low cost-effectiveness.

(0) Thank | Jackson_M

One week later, the manuscript entered the "With editor" stage after the initial assessment. Did you not go through the initial assessment first?

(0) Thank | raxyang

Recently, RSC has been very slow. I have been waiting for 13 days and I am still only just "with editor".

(0) Thank | 再睡一会儿

The paper was submitted in December last year and published in March this year. The overall speed was decent, and there were no delays due to the Lunar New Year or Christmas. The reviewers were responsible and professional, and the editors were diligent. One reviewer suggested major revisions while the other suggested minor revisions. The final revisions took about a month, mainly because the first round of review was slow, as the reviewers were thorough in examining the review article. Overall, it was a good experience with this well-established journal on nanomaterials, although it is a pity that it is only ranked as a third-tier journal by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

(0) Thank | zqh

3.10 submitted
Still pending initial assessment.

(0) Thank | @@@@

Submitted on March 10, 2025
March 10, 2025-present with editorial office

(0) Thank | 马月飞

Can we go back to District 2 in 2025?

(0) Thank | XIAO卡拉米

2025.02.06 major revisions
2025.03.06 resubmitted
Still with editor to date.

(0) Thank | Jackson_M

2024.8.6 Submitted
2024.8.28 Reject and Resubmit
2024.9.12 Resubmitted
2024.9.23 Major Revision
2024.10.2 Accept
Overall, it's acceptable.

(0) Thank | Manngo

2024.12.13 submitted
2024.12.16 editor assigned
2025.01.02 in peer review
The process is very slow.

(0) Thank | Jackson_M

Dear all, are you prepared to submit papers to the special issue on clay and molecular sieves in Materials journal (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials/special_issues/46265p7124)? Papers within the scope of Materials journal are welcomed. Please send me the author information and abstract first (earthwandering[at]outlook.com), so I can apply for a discount with the editorial board.

(0) Thank | imagination