A review article. It was submitted a year ago. At that time, I did not have any experience, almost all of it was written by intuition, and then I was forced to submit. The review took nearly a month and a half, and later it became a tragedy. There were 5 reviewers, two required minor revisions, two required major revisions, one gave a rejection, and it finally got rejected. After half a year, I felt a little bit confident, picked it up again, changed it to a similar direction, and completely rewrote the entire contents. It took a month and a half. The manuscript was submitted and then a minor revision was required after reviewing for a month and a half. The editor in the middle sent us an email saying that there would be results soon, which make me feel very sweet. Four reviewers, three required minor revisions, one highly recognized it, and one required a major revision, whose tone make me feel like that he was the one from the last time. The words he used were awkward, but the question raised was not sharp. After it was returned, it was sent for review and accepted in 2 weeks. I am grateful. Your effort will pay off. This is the first review of my life. Rise up where you fall.

(9) Thank | 魏无羡

Editor: William R. Wagner; Submission date: 2020/9/4; Rejection date: 2020/9/8; speed is precious in war! Here is the reason why the editor given for the rejection: We receive a large number of manuscript submissions and unfortunately are only able to publish a fraction of these. To conserve the time of our reviewers not all manuscripts received are sent out for peer review if the editorial office does not feel that the work is of strong enough novelty or impact for our readers. It is an official rejection letter, lacking constructive content.

(1) Thank | zhuozipl

A serious journal. It will definitely be sent for review it after revision. The first review took about 50 days, and the three reviewers all required major revisions. The editor-in-chief gave us over 45 days for us to revise. We supplemented most of the experiments and sent it back after 20 days. One month later, the comments were returned, two reviewers passed, and one insisted on continuing to supplement the experiment. The editor-in-chief gave another 45 days for the major revision. It was also revised and sent back after 20 days when completing the experiment. Accepted in twenty days. 50, 20, 20, 20, 20 days. It took about four months in total. After two major revisions, the experiment was supplemented. The point is that too much time was spent on the re-review after the revisions. Although the efficiency is not high, the impact factor continues to rise, which is generally optimistic.

(6) Thank | sanmo

The editor is very good. The research direction is biomedical engineering. The editors solicited three reviewers from the areas of chemistry, clinical medicine, and physiology. Each reviewer had a lot of questions and was very professional. I submitted in July, and the manuscript was accepted in mid-January. The review and revision process took half a year, which I feel is a bit slow. Advice: Be sure to answer the reviewers’ questions in detail.

(0) Thank | 188yue

The rejection efficiency is very high.
2025.7.23 Submitted
2025.7.24 Awaiting Editor Decision or Reviewer Confirmation
2025.7.25 Pending decision
2025.7.25 Reject

(0) Thank | 随风的人

The old journal has a high level of recognition in the academic community; currently, it seems that the WeChat account has not yet opened the search function, so online searching is still necessary;
One month for the first review, two weeks for the second review, three reviewers, and the editorial efficiency is very high.

(0) Thank | l384346393

The experimental data that needed to be supplemented took a long time, extending for nearly 8 months. However, the word count didn't really matter, as I had exceeded the required amount by quite a bit.

(0) Thank | 油焖小龙虾

Currently, the status is "under review". Why can't I find the progress of the manuscript on the Elsevier Research Publishing Service official account?

(2) Thank | 戴戴大师兄

Just received yesterday,
this journal review is very professional, with a total of four reviewers, plus about 60 questions from the editor. However, after the revision, the quality of the article has indeed improved, and some issues raised are very detailed, showing that the reviewers are really paying attention.
Thanks to the editor's kindness, after being rejected by CEJ3 for a year, my favor for Acta Bio has greatly increased. In the future, my articles will definitely be first choice in Acta Bio in CEJ and Acta Bio.
Wish everyone a smooth submission!

(0) Thank | 5379542ll

It's really slow, and there is still an issue with one of the reviewers in the second review. The editor requested minor revisions, but it has been two weeks since I sent it back and there has been no response.

(1) Thank | 油焖小龙虾

Does "Decision Pending" mean rejection, or has it not been reviewed yet?

(0) Thank | 牛纸涛

Don't be influenced by the word count and page number. I have submitted a bunch of papers to this journal, and I have never thought about the word count or page number. My over 10,000 words have not said much, as long as the article is new enough and the editor likes it, they will accept even more words.

(0) Thank | material &James H

In the field of degradable metal mechanics, Acta seems to really like this type of article. After two rounds of revisions, it was accepted in about 3 months. Originally, I wanted to submit to bioactive materials, with a higher impact factor, but my supervisor said that this journal is highly recognized in the industry, second only to biomaterials in the field of biological materials, so I submitted to this journal.

2024.11.25 submit
2024.12.1 under review
2024.12.17 under review
2024.12.24 required reviewers completed
2024.12.30 major revision (3 reviewers, need to add some experiments)
2025.01.30 R1 submit
2025.2.17 required reviewers completed
2025.2.17 minor revision (editor asked to change image formats, etc.)
2025.2.18 R2 submit (made changes immediately and submitted)
2025.2.19 with editor (soon after, it showed waiting for editor or reviewer confirmation)
2025.2.19 decision pending
2025.2.22 accept

(0) Thank | material &James H

My 1-week deadline is approaching.

(0) Thank | material &James H

Can the god of this recently invested project provide a reference for how long it takes for the project to be reviewed?

(0) Thank | 5379542ll

Recently, the great god who invested in this, how long will it take to be reviewed? Can you provide a reference?

(0) Thank | 5379542ll

I have been awaiting editor decision or reviewer confirmation for four days now. I received an automated message in my email stating that I have been listed as a co-author and that I am required to log into the system to confirm my agreement and track the status. Is this necessary? Will it affect the progress? If confirmation is required, shouldn't everyone have to confirm?

(0) Thank | 科研是什么东西

It shouldn't be a problem. When I submitted, I moved the experimental part to the supporting information in order to compress it. However, after receiving the major revision comments, the editorial team suggested that I move the experimental part back to the main text.

(0) Thank | 油焖小龙虾

My submission is also 40 pages long. The author guidelines state that submissions exceeding this length will be rejected and need to be revised before being considered. Will my submission be rejected outright because of this?

(0) Thank | 科研是什么东西

Hello, how are you? I just submitted to this journal yesterday, is it a bit slow?

(0) Thank | 科研是什么东西

What is the next step? What's going on?

(0) Thank | 徐铭蔚

Two weeks later for review, strangely, it is impossible to track the status of the submission through the Elsevier public account.

(0) Thank | 油焖小龙虾

It has been a week since "Awaiting Editor Decision or Reviewer Confirmation," and it feels like other reviews are being processed quickly. Hopefully, it hasn't been rejected again.

(0) Thank | 油焖小龙虾