2023.6.23 submitted to journal
2023.7.14 major revision
2023.9.11 resubmitted
2023.9.21 minor revision
2023.10.7 resubmitted
2023.10.16 accepted
2023.10.26 published online

In general, the review process was quite fast!

(0) 讚！ | Andrew

10.3 Submission;
11.6 Minor revisions;
12.2 Revised manuscript resubmitted;
12.20 Pre-acceptance.
Edited by Prof. Robert B. Grubbs

(0) 讚！ | superpig

2023-10-25 Submission
2023-10-25 under review
2023-10-26 assigned to editor
Not reviewed by the 29th

(0) 讚！ | 早点弄懂自己想要什么

2022.9.27 Submission
2022.11.4 Minor repairs, one month
2022.11.20 Return after repairs
2022.12.9 Reception

(1) 讚！ | 龙龙哥哥

The ACS Publishing House system submission is under review. There is a detailed status in the upper right corner. The subsequent process involves assigning a deputy editor and then sending it for review.

(0) 讚！ | 小奕在努力

2022.9.25 Submitted
2022.9.25 Under review
2022.9.27 Assigned to Editor
Currently under review...

(0) 讚！ | 万物-皆流

Submitted on 9.26, the status changed directly to "under review". I have never submitted to an ACS journal before. Can you please explain what is happening?

(0) 讚！ | HH6610

Submitted on December 17th, I was originally worried that the editor would not have time before Christmas. Fortunately, the editor was efficient and assigned reviewers before Christmas. They provided their feedback after three weeks, and both comments required minor revisions. It took me three weeks to respond to the feedback, but it was quickly accepted. The article will be published in early March, which is perfect for the fund review.

(0) 讚！ | JSC07

Previously, the review speed of Macromolecules was very fast, but this time it took me three months from submission to acceptance. Here is the submission process:

05/13 Submission
05/15 Under review. This step had a quick response.
The review process was relatively slow, possibly due to the difficulty in finding reviewers during the pandemic. 06/27 Received two acceptance or minor revision suggestions and one major revision suggestion.
07/07 Re-submission.
The second round of review was also slow, possibly because the reviewer for the major revision was delaying. It took one month before 08/06 when the article was accepted.
The entire cycle was a long and anxious wait, but I am happy that it was accepted. Although the impact factor of Macromolecules is not very high, it is highly influential in the field of polymer science and is in the top tier journal. I am very satisfied. Overall, the efficiency of ACS publication is good, much better than RSC.

(3) 讚！ | 科研民工007

05/05, submitted
05/06, editor assigned
05/08, in peer review
06/07, revision request, two reviewers, major revision and minor revision
06/17, revision submitted
07/07, pre-acceptance
07/09, accepted
One month of review time, overall feeling is good, hoping the journal will continue to improve!

(6) 讚！ | john585

2021.7.9 Submitted to journal
2021.7.12 With editor
2021.7.14 In peer review
~present Unknown results

(5) 讚！ | senior

Hello, I want to ask how you can see the status of the review? As soon as I submit my article, it shows "under review". However, when I click on "instruction & forms", I don't see any information about the status of my submission to this journal. There is only information about a previous article that was rejected by another journal and transferred.

(0) 讚！ | TJA

One reviewer reviewed my paper, he suggested major revision but editor rejected my manuscript. very sad

(0) 讚！ | 11736051@zju.edu.cn

It took exactly three months from the initial submission to the publication of the journal. During the process I made major revisions and minor revisions. The response time of the journal is pretty fast. I would like to thank Professor Liangbin Li, the associate editor of Macromolecules, who is very responsible and rigorous. After the first submission, the editor quickly submitted it for review, and sent back three reviewers' opinions with major revision, minor revision, transfer respectively. The editor required major revision. Then the author carefully revised the article and addressed the reviewers’ comments. The editor returned the article to the three reviewers. The first two reviewers agreed to publish it this time. The third reviewer still disagreed, and the editor gave the opportunity to modify again. The author emphatically responded to the third reviewer and explained the details of the experiment in detail. The article was finally accepted in more than a week. PS: After proofreading the manuscript, the system would send an email to inform that the article would be published online within 48–72 hours. But this time was not completely accurate, like mine, waited almost a week before it was published...

(5) 讚！ | 逆水行舟

Macromolecules, as an authoritative journal in the polymer field, are widely approved in the field. The process in the editors and reviewers and other parts are of fast speed. It is in the style of famous journal. The submission system of American Chemical Society is also more user-friendly. I recommend everyone to submit to this journal. My entire submission process is as follows. The time is not guaranteed to be completely accurate, for your reference only: 2019.06.06 submitted, 2019.06.08 under review, 2019.06.30 major revision, 2019.07.18 resubmitted, 2019.08.08 minor revision, 2019.08.15 resubmitted, 2019.08.26 accepted, 2019.08.31 proof review, 2019.09.06 published online.

(10) 讚！ | 逆水行舟

March 19, 2019, submission. Reviewer comments returned after 50 days and required a major revision. Reply to the reviewer's comments after 8 days and resubmitted the revised version. Accepted directly after 3 days. The overall speed is okay.

(11) 讚！ | 丁香花下

9.On the evening of the 30th, the submission was made, the 10.3 was filled with an agreement, and the 4th opened the mailbox and immediately responded. Since it was the first submission, it was drummed for one hour and submitted before noon.Until today, 10.15, or submitted to editorial office... the night before dreamed of being rejected, oh... anxious, maybe, really no news is the best news.Note: 1. The review speed is filled in casually, because no news has been received yet.2. The wrong time before, correct again

(0) 讚！ | 919003364@qq.com

9.30 Nothing was submitted at night, No. 10.3 was filled in with an Agreement, and No. 4 was opened to see the mailbox. After the first submission, the drumstick took one hour and submitted before noon.of.I know today, 10.18, or Submitted to Editorial Office... I dreamt of being rejected the night before, oh... anxious, maybe, there is really no news, the best news

(0) 讚！ | 919003364@qq.com

I am the second sci, the first section of the lab, the first time, the middle man told the boss.The research content is to study the rubber vulcanization mechanism through epoxy model compounds, which is not a hot field (even an unpopular), but there is still a breakthrough in the research of rubber vulcanization.At one time, the expectations were very high. They had submited in jacs, cm, and cs. They all thought that they were too professional for journals and did not submit a tragedy.It is estimated that these publications still prefer popular research content.Then switch to macromolecules, 50 days to review comments, two reviewers, one thinks that the full text has no urine, can be received directly; another I feel that did not understand, said no logic no innovation... edited to overhaul, time 2Months.I replied in detail to the reviewers' opinions and stated the opinions and basis of my papers. The responses to the review comments were 5,000 words (7000 words in my article).Return to the comments after one month.I thought that the editor would be assigned to the reviewer who had a lot of opinions. The result was accepted two days later!Very unexpected to me, it is estimated that the editor himself agrees with my content, and I also see my sincerity in responding to the review comments, so the attitude of replying to the review comments is really very important!Thanks to the co-editor of the big molecule, coates·geoffrey.Review draft:2016.10.27 submit2016.12.16 major revision (the previous time was incorrect)2017.1.17 Revised2017.1.19 accept

(18) 讚！ | 493882709@qq.com

The research content of my article is to study the rubber vulcanization mechanism through epoxy model compounds, which is not a hot field (it’s even an unpopular field), but there is still a breakthrough in the research of rubber vulcanization. It took 50 days to review comments; there were two reviewers. I replied in detail to the reviewers' opinions and stated the opinions and basis of my papers. It took one month for the editor to reply. The attitude of replying to the review comments is really very important!

(2) 讚！ | 493882709@qq.com

8.1 The first submission, 9.10 comments, rejected after two overhauls, the editor suggested rewriting the re-submitment;According to the review comments, the article was re-adjusted, and some experiments were supplemented. 11.4 second submission, 12.3 review review comments, one minor revision agreed; 2017.02.09 accepted

(0) 讚！ | 15093321659@126.com

The review is now very fast, less than a month.The data requirements are comprehensive and the structure is best and novel.

(0) 讚！ | 无

The journal is the top journal in the field of polymers. The editors are very strict on the initial screening of the manuscript. Generally, they have not received the news for half a month. The representative is sent for review. The reviewer can be received in more than one month.Opinions, the level of reviewers is quite high, and asking questions can be described as a hit.The following is the process of my last paper from the initial submission to the final acceptance: 2013.3.18 contribution 2013.3.19 distribution editor 2013.5.4 request to amend 2013.5.12 select revision 2013.6.21 again request to amend 2013.6.23 again to select revision 2013.6.25 Received Receive Notification

(4) 讚！ | 匿名

The efficiency is really high. Three reviewers, two weeks of review comments returned, and received more than an hour after the overhaul...I am still very satisfied with this part of my work. The reviewers are indeed very bullish, and the comments made are very helpful to the article.

(0) 讚！ | 匿名

The first time I selectd for a big molecule, the article was changed after the CM was rejected.I have read many articles in this journal. I feel that most of the articles are very high. It is difficult to listen to others. This time, I also tried to take the test. After all, the CM was rejected.Three reviewers, the third reviewer requested an overhaul.Received 20 days after modification.Although the impact factor is not high, personally think that Macromolecules is not worse than CM.Mainly the focus of the article content is different.Macromolecules focuses on the study of synthetic characterization mechanisms.CM is best made into devices, and the application data is best.

(1) 讚！ | 匿名