BIOMACROMOLECULES focuses on basic research, requiring new structures or mechanisms, and has a certain biological significance. It is highly recognized within the industry, and the quality of the papers published in this journal is good with no fluff. Submitting once, the review process is fast and the reviewers are meticulous

(1) 讚！ | F.G

Submission to review: 5 days
Review to feedback and revisions (minor revisions, all three reviewers are minor revisions): approximately 20 days
Submission of revised manuscript to pre-acceptance: 5 days
Pre-acceptance to formal acceptance: 5 days
Total time from submission to formal acceptance: 35 days

ACS journals have responsible editors and reviewers, they require innovative mechanisms and rich data. Biomacromolecules does not focus much on impact factor, but it is a good journal

(1) 讚！ | MOFG

Please remove the previous comments, thank you!

(0) 讚！ | ewpope

I have submitted to this journal several times before, but unfortunately failed each time. Each time I submit a paper on biomaterials, I need to find five reviewers. It feels like they come from different countries and areas of expertise in Europe, America, and Asia. Convincing each reviewer is quite challenging. I will share my recent submission experience, which took nearly six months in total. Most of the time was spent on animal experiments during the summer. The review process took about 3 weeks for the first round and a very short 1 week for the second round.

2023.6.25 submitted
6.29 assigned to Associate Editor Wolfgang Parak
7.20 received comments after about 3 weeks, with 2 minor revisions, 1 major revision, 1 rejection, and 1 suggestion to publish in a different journal
Applied for an extension for revision and conducted additional experiments
11.6 submitted revised manuscript R1
11.21 first four reviewers agreed to publish, but the expert from the "publish in a different journal" round still believed it was not innovative enough and recommended publishing elsewhere. Editor suggested minor revisions
11.25 submitted revised manuscript addressing the final reviewer's minor issues
12.2 accepted in principle, made minor formatting changes, had to make back-and-forth changes twice, the last time via email communication, directly replying to the email with attached revised text instead of uploading files to the submission system, leading to a delay of over a week
12.14 formally accepted

(2) 讚！ | ewpope

8.26 Submission
8.30 Associate editor assigned
8.31 In peer review
9.20 Major revision with three reviewers, two minor and one major, one month given
10.08 Revised after additional experiments, In peer review the same day
10.11 Acceptance pending, addressed formatting issues the same day
10.12 Accept 
Editorial response to reviewers' comments was prompt

(1) 讚！ | Neocucii

My situation is the same. How did you change the state behind you?

(0) 讚！ | really-66

11.5 submission
11.20 feedback, with 20 days for major revisions
December 1st feedback
December 7th acceptance
The overall timeframe is very fast, the reviewers are highly professional, and they provided many suggestions that helped improve the quality of the article. The editor is very good, making this the most enjoyable experience I have had with submissions. The journal emphasizes a deep understanding of the material's mechanism, rather than its practical application, and does not require a lot of data. However, they do expect strong innovation.

(1) 讚！ | 大颗好果

Is there anyone whose submission is "under review" from the beginning? After a week of submission, the status shows "submitted to the editorial office," which means an editor has been assigned. There is a link to send an email to the editor below, but it is still "under review."

(0) 讚！ | 就是想毕业

What happened to you in the end, OP? Did you send it for repair?

(0) 讚！ | 就是来看看

It has been 10 days in the editor's hands, may I ask if the status will change to "in peer review" or will it remain unchanged?

(1) 讚！ | escape SCI

Hello, may I ask if there is a clear status for the review? It has been in the editor's hands for a week, but there has been no progress.

(0) 讚！ | 一平方米

First time submitting to this journal, the review process and subsequent handling were both very fast, with high efficiency. I really like this journal.
2.1 Submission, assigned editor on the same day.
2.16 Review comments returned, four reviewers, all minor revisions.
2.23 Revised.
2.24 "Acceptance pending," editor raised some formatting issues. Returned on the same day.
2.25 Accepted.
3.5 Proofreading.
3.6 Online.

(2) 讚！ | Huiming Yin

After submitting, three editors provided valuable feedback on the content of the manuscript, while also expressing a high level of recognition for it. After minor revisions, the manuscript was accepted and published online the next day, showing a very high efficiency.

(0) 讚！ | Peiming Liu

Two major revisions and two minor revisions were required, and it was accepted after revision. This journal has high requirements for material characterization, but not for animal experiments.

(8) 讚！ | Hydration

This journal is really good. One month after submission, the comments of review were given, and major revision was required. One of the reviewers required major revision and the other two required minor revision. I spent one week for reply; it was accepted on the third day. It was really fast. However, the reviewers’ comments were very professional, and the questions were detailed. The requirements of the innovation were high, and the part of mechanism should be especially explained. In short, I often read the submission experience on this website, and finally I can give back to everyone, I hope it helps.

(6) 讚！ | 材化生环占三

This journal is very good. The manuscript is my first paper in the field of chemistry. One and a half months later I received the review comments, one major revision and one minor revision, and no additional experiment were required. I returned it after 7 days of modification. It was accepted 2 days later, and directly online on the same day. Hope the journal gets better and better.

(2) 讚！ | tan hu

initial submitment, one month after the whole revised comments.One of the reviewers felt that my research should not be a journal.Personal estimates may be accepted because their research experiments are still novel.The reviewer is very strict and has given many revisions.A total of three reviewers gave me a review of the paper.Although there is a one-month modification time (can be extended by consultation with the editor), in order to show sincerity, it has been resubmitted in half a month.Notify for accept after one week.Overall, the journal is highly efficient and the innovation requirements of the article are not low.

(0) 讚！ | tom.huangtong@gmail.com

The article was submitted out at the end of July, and the review comments were received after one and a half months.

(1) 讚！ | 匿名

6 On the 25th of the month, the company received the revised opinion on August 23, a minor repair, and the score was higher.Another reviewer provided a lot of constructive comments on the biological representation, suggested overhaul, revised comments on September 4, and received on September 6.Overall, the article may need to have a certain degree of novelty, and your second SCI can be accepted, very honored!

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

contributed 53 days, still no news, anxiously waiting for

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

this journal must first MACROMOLECULES, molecular structure and performance should be clearly defined, nuclear magnetic should be in accordance with the normCome; then BIO, now it is acceptable at the cellular level; finally, there must be some novelty in integration.The review manuscript is still very fast, if is also good, it is worth a select

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

review period is about one and a half months, three reviewers, one directly accepted, two minor repairs.Received on the third day after returning, you can download it online immediately.The degree of innovation in this journal's innovation and journal must be high, and each reviewer is to score, remember!

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Submitted for 3 weeks with news, two reviewers.One reviewer has a high evaluation, another reviewer has a very low evaluation, and the evaluation content is extremely abnormal. It is estimated that he has encountered competitors, lacking a basic objective and fair position, and the evaluation content is not praised, but it is not reasonable.The consistency of content and journal positioning is very low, which is too much. I think that if my job is not suitable for this journal, I really don't know if it is suitable for that.So, I had to walk away silently, change it.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

3 On March 13th, I was rejected on April 16th. I am doing the polysaccharide structure. The reason is too specific.Magazines in this wide range may be too few readers, so it is recommended to switch to the journal on carbohydrate.Two reviewers, one is this opinion and the other is accept after minor revision.However, the editor still prefers the opinions of the first reviewer.Sad reminder, and now reflect on it, it may be that the article does not mention the word biomacromolecules.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

Submitted for one month, two major changes, edited by Dr. Simona PercecRefused.It is very difficult to have innovative requirements for manuscripts!

(0) 讚！ | 匿名