2020/6/18 submission; 2020/6/22 received/ under review; 2020/6/28 major revisions. Two reviewers, one submitted ten comments and one submitted seven or eight. A reviewer asked to rewrite a section. Then I added something. 2020/7/6 Revised Version Received. Revised submission. 2020/7/18 minor revised. One reviewer in the first review did not reply, and the other reviewer agreed, so the editor found a third reviewer, who said that there was a problem with the language and raised some formatting issues. Then I made minor revisions and let it to be polished. 2020/7/23 Manuscript Resubmitted. I returned the polished manuscript directly. 2020/7/24 Revised Version Received/ pending editor decision. I was pending the editor’s decision. 2020/7/28 Revised version review. It was sent for review again... Now I was waiting for the result and I hope it to be accepted soon.

(2) Thank | Bruce Chen

Let me tell you the truth. 1. There are many articles published in the journal each year. It is estimated that it covers a wide range of research directions, almost covering all fields related to materials. However, there must be more people who submits to it. A manuscript from someone I know was rejected. The advantage of OA journals is reviewing fast and manuscripts are not necessarily of low quality. It has quite high requirements for articles in this direction. 2. The comments put forward by the reviewers in the first and second rounds were very sharp and to the point. The theoretical knowledge foundation was quite solid. Fortunately, I am familiar with this aspect or else it’s really very difficult to answer their questions. Two reviewers should be said to be experts in the field. Not only did they know what you were doing, but also they could analyze the results of your methods exactly. It didn’t feel like they were reviewing an article in a Q3 journal at all. They didn’t seem to review an OA article. The review comments were similar to comments on an article in a Q2 journal. The comments raised by one of the other two reviewers have significantly improved the language content of the article. The comments raised by the fourth reviewer had no obvious correlation with the article, but they were difficult to answer. It required the author to be very familiar with the theory. 3. I read a few articles on Materials related to my direction, and most of them were still ok, but some of the statements are not very good. Some articles are generally innovative, but the language and content of the article are still higher than those of some Q3 and Q4 articles. (It is only for my small direction, for the articles I have read. Please lightly grumble if you have different opinions.) Some journals are not particularly demanding in English expression.

(22) Thank | seeyo

It took 1.5 months from submission to acceptance. My paper was rejected twice before submission here, and then it was submitted to Materials, four reviewers, the opinions are reliable. The article has been revised a lot, and I feel it was improved a lot. The submission process is attached for your reference: 2019.08.26 Submission; 2019.08.27 Under review; 2019.09.10 Pending decision; 2019.09.16 Major revision. There were 4 reviewers: 2 required minor revisions, but it was no trouble; 2 required major revisions, with many problems. One of the reviewers believed that the article is dispensable to be accepted. 2019.09.25 Submit revised version; 2019.09.26 Revised version review; 2019.10.03 Minor revision. Only 2 reviewers that required major revisions conducted 2 rounds of review. They approved the revision of the paper and offered a total of 3 format issues. 2019.10.04 Resubmitted. The editor might be taking the China National Day holiday. 2019.10.06 Pending editor decision; 2019.10.10 Accepted. P.S. The brain of the person who attacked others upstairs is definitely ill. I hope you to be treated as soon as possible and don’t delay the condition.

(18) Thank | 菜鸟一枚

Quite fast; my paper was rejected after a little over a month, during which time the editor was replaced by a new one; not sure why. Three external reviewers. I submitted at the end of June. Reviewer 1 (7-2): I would recommend the manuscript for publication in the present form (may be after minor spell check/English corrections). External reviewer 2 (7-14): minor changes see comments in attached revised manuscript. External Reviewer 3 (7-21): read recent literature in the field and improve............I feel that the external reviewer 3 is the new editor, Chelsea Mu. Didn’t even give me a chance for major revision.  I feel that the editor is a little irresponsible, or there was a conflict between the two editors. Be careful!

(7) Thank | auden

It's considered relatively fast, with a submission date of 5.29, and the first feedback requiring major revisions was received on 6.11, with a request for a response within 10 days.

(0) Thank | Rich Zhang

Polymers special issue, "Dynamic Behavior of Polymer Materials and Structures," is continuously accepting submissions. Colleagues are welcome to inquire, submit, and recommend. 
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers/special_issues/075H1D0JE1

(3) Thank | Chang

A special issue on intelligent, multifunctional negative Poisson's ratio/negative stiffness mechanical metamaterials has recently been launched in the Frontiers in Materials journal! We look forward to submissions from fellow experts (^～^) Welcome to inquire~

(3) Thank | Chang

Submitted on May 30th, got PR on the same day, still PR on June 4th. Feels a bit slow.

(0) Thank | Civil_sir

05-24 待进行重大修订

(0) Thank | radonmay

05-08 submit
05-09 under review

(1) Thank | 沈鹏

Paper accepted on April 25th.

(0) Thank | Jason778

Has anyone ever encountered a situation where after submitting a revised version (ped), there is only a minor revision without a pending status, and there is no option to resubmit after making the changes? This has really confused me.

(0) Thank | 食不食油饼

Could I ask everyone, when submitting Materials, does selecting a category in the Section part mean that the submission is for a special issue rather than a regular issue?

(0) Thank | Nusc

It only took one month from submission to acceptance, very quickly, for the Special Issue Plastic Deformation, Strengthening and Toughening of Advanced Metallic Materials.
2025.03.16 submit
2025.03.17 pending review
2025.03.18 under review
2025.04.07 pending minor revision
2025.04.10 pending editor decision
2025.04.16 accept
2025.04.17 publication

(0) Thank | 树树树

4-17 Pending editor decision.

(0) Thank | Jason778

4-16 Resubmitted.

(0) Thank | Jason778

4-15 Pending minor revisions.

(0) Thank | Jason778

4-8 Resubmitted
4-9 Revised version review

请注意，这里只是简单地翻译了这句话。

(0) Thank | Jason778

3-28 Pending major revisions

(0) Thank | Jason778

How do you pay for the layout fee?

(0) Thank | 章伯

How do you pay for the layout fee? Do you transfer money through mobile banking? It seems quite complicated to me.

(0) Thank | 章伯

The efficiency is indeed quite high, but I am not sure how to pay the layout fee, it seems a bit complicated to me.

(0) Thank | 章伯

The review process is efficient and fast (average within two weeks), with editors being diligent and responsible. Excellent submissions may qualify for a reduction in APC fees.

Topic: Evaluation of Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of Lightweight Alloys
Homepage: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials/special_issues/C5D24V2CZ2
Keywords: aluminum alloy; magnesium alloy; titanium alloy; alloy composition; manufacturing processes; heat treatment; mechanical properties; microstructure; fatigue resistance
Submission deadline: June 20, 2025.

(0) Thank | Miracle

3-9提交
3-9待审核
3-11审核中

(0) Thank | Jason778

25.1.15 pending major revisions

(0) Thank | 蠕动蜗牛