Manuscript received: 03 July 2020; Manuscript revised: 04 September 2020; Version of record online: 28 September 2020; Title: Optimizing Redox Reactions in Aprotic Lithium-Sulfur Batteries. Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202002180.

(16) Thank | Anjun Hu

8.12, submission; 9.9, the result of first review returned. There were 3 reviewers. The first reviewer appreciated our work and though it was a great breakthrough. The second and third reviewers rejected it without understanding it and the editor rejected it. I disagreed with it and appealed. The comment of the appeal returned on September 10, and the editor completely agree with my opinion. Only 10 days was given for major revision, and the editor advised transferring. It was resubmitted after revision on September 30. The response letter was written more than 5,700 words, and many experiments were supplemented. The problems that the second and third reviewers cannot understand was popularized for a long time. The result of the second review returned on October 28, and it was sent to the second and third reviewers who gave rejection. As a result, the reviewers understood the content I popularized, but did not understand the experiment part I supplemented, so they rejected it again. The editor apologized and had to reject it after receiving rejection comments repeatedly. Overall, the editor of this journal was good. It's just that the reviewers were really speechless, who rejected the manuscript without understanding it. The review was very perfunctory. The questions asked were not technical and did not help improve the quality of the article. The reviewer even asked the questions without seeing clearly what we did. Especially the No. 3 reviewer, who said that our work was based on other people’s hypnosis without reading carefully in the first review. In the second review, he rejected the manuscript on the grounds of not having heard of it before. He was not consistent with himself. I want to say that if you have heard of it, is this still called innovation? Moreover, when these two reviewers made qualitative comments, they boasted that this journal had high standards and enjoyed a high reputation. They did simping stuff. It's a pity that we are a small research group, and the boss is unknown. If the corresponding author is an expert, maybe this reviewer will send us an email to show favor.

(30) Thank | Elmagnifico

In the research direction of photocatalytic water splitting. It took only one month from submission to acceptance. 2019.03.08 Submission; 2019.04.01 comments returned; one directly accepted it and recommended to VIP, and one required a minor revision with an experiment added. The editor gave me 7 days to revise. 2019.04.07 Revised submission; 2019.04.11 Accepted; 2019.04.15 cover invitation received; 2019.04.17 proof received; 2019.04.24 Online; 2019.05.08 Cover selected; 2019.06.12 Cover officially published. The editor was Dr. Carolina Novo da Silva from Germany. The manuscript processing speed was very fast. I wish the journal more and more successful.

(31) Thank | Shuning

I have submitted one paper, accepted after 2 months with minor revision in between. I feel manuscript processing is slow, because it wasn’t published until after half a year. It is the sister journal of Adv. Mater., so has high standards for novelty. Energy materials are definitely the hottest area today. Although it is only in November, I think this journal’s first IF will definitely be above 10. The number of publications is still controlled in the second year, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it surpasses the main issue in the near future.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Fulfilling a vow.

(0) Thank | Victory DQ

2025.3.6 revise
2025.3.17 submitted/with editor
2025.3.26 Still with editor, why is the second review taking so long with the editor, feeling anxious

(0) Thank | Victory DQ

Submission Timeline
2025.1.27 submitted
2025.2.5 with editor
2025.2.13 under review
Seeking advice from experts, how long does it take to receive the first review? Will the editor reject the submission if the reviewers recommend rejection? This is my first time submitting to this top journal.

(0) Thank | Victory DQ

Please translate the following passage into English: Accept!!! Please accept.

(0) Thank | Victory DQ

I submitted to Angewandte Chemie and it was not accepted for review, then I submitted to ACS Applied Energy Materials and it was accepted. There is no necessary relationship between the two.

(0) Thank | 台风来了啊

The article on lithium battery materials was submitted on January 12, 2025.
It was with the editor on the morning of January 15.
It is currently under review in the afternoon of January 15.

(0) Thank | 牛123

2024.9.13 Manuscript Submitted
2024.9.18 under review
2024.10.7 Review comments received, editor rejected, two positive and one negative
2024.10.18 After revision, submitted an appeal letter
2024.11.26 Editor provided opportunity for revision, responded to review comments and submitted revised manuscript
2024.12.09 Revised and resubmitted
2024.12.23 Accepted
Thank you for the recognition from the editor and reviewers, wishing everyone smooth submission process.

(0) Thank | 沉迷科研我无法自拔

It's too damn slow. After the first review was completed, they gave me 14 days to make revisions. I hurriedly made the changes and submitted them, entering the long wait for the second review. It has been two months and one week now, and I have reminded them several times, but they say the reviewer cannot be reached. Are you editors eating sh*t? If you can't reach them, why don't you just stop the review process?

(0) Thank | xuemo

It is said that if rejected by ANGEW, one can apply to AFM, but the chances of being rejected by AEM are high.

(0) Thank | Mark1995

I was rejected by angew and then refused to transfer to small, so I decided to invest in AEM out of frustration.

(0) Thank | Mark1995

The submission has been over two months, and still no news. Waiting is making everyone anxious.

(1) Thank | 发篇顶刊呗

weitou

(0) Thank | 嘎嘎嘎哦

Hello, do you reply directly to the email sent by the system, or do you prefer to write a new cover letter when responding to feedback?

(0) Thank | dawang

7.9 resubmit
7.23 recommended for publication
7.27 resubmit
7.29 accept

(0) Thank | 中篇子刊吧

6.02 Submission to AM not sent for review, editor suggested transfer to AEM, agreed to transfer on the same day.
6.06 Under review with editor on the same day.
6.28 Major revision, with one reviewer suggesting major revisions and the other suggesting minor revisions.

It feels like Wiley is strengthening the flagship status of AM. Recently, articles rejected by AM in our group have all been advised to transfer to AFM/AEM. AFM and AEM have gradually become the waste disposal sites for AM.

(0) Thank | 科研Yang阳

4.20 稿件已提交
4.24 与编辑联系
5.3 审稿中
6.7 大修（两个审稿人）
6.27 修订稿已提交
7.3 审稿中
7.12 完成接受

(0) Thank | Vera99

Did your appeal succeed? What is the process for appealing? Could you please tell me about it and share some experience with me? Thank you, big brother.

(0) Thank | 2032jia

Hello classmates, I would like to ask you a question. When writing an appeal letter, should we solve all the issues first before writing it? Or should we write it in advance and wait for the editor's approval before submitting the appeal letter along with the responses to the reviewer's questions? Big shots passing by, please also help to reply. Thank you to the author and everyone!

(0) Thank | 2032jia

4.20 稿件已提交
4.24 正在编辑中
5.3 审稿中
6.7 重大修订（两位审稿人）
6.27 修订已提交
7.3 审稿中

(0) Thank | Vera99

Here is a submission record for everyone's reference~
2023.11.22 submitted
2023.11.23 with editor
2023.12.02 under review
2023.12.27 reviewer comments returned
2024.01.31 revisions sent back
2024.02.15 accepted
Wishing everyone a smooth submission process~

(1) Thank | 西湖醋鲈鱼

3.17 Submitted for review
5.5 Received comments from reviewers, three reviewers (1 minor revisions, 2 major revisions), editor provided two months for major revisions
5.22 Submitted revisions
6.19 Paper accepted

(0) Thank | Weber528