2024-01-15 submit
2024-01-17 modify the format
2024-02-05 major revision
2024-02-15 major revision revised R1
2024-04-04 minor revision
2024-04-07 minor revision revised R2
2024-04-17 accept

R1: One reviewer, with four questions, one of which contains five or six sub-questions. None of them are too difficult to answer, but all are very core questions.
R2: One reviewer, with one question that is a question from R1, the reviewer feels that I still did not express it clearly after the modification, the reviewer gave their own suggestions for modification. Thanks to the reviewer. Thanks to editor Stefano Curtarolo

(0) 讚！ | 什么昵称不会重复啊

2024.04.26 submitted
2024.04.29 with editor
2024.05.04 under review
The efficiency is very high, domestic JMST, rare metals are all desktop rejections, instant rejections. Hope Scripta can pass, otherwise there really are no other short journals to submit to

(0) 讚！ | 一根油条+两个鸡蛋

"How did it turn out in the end? I am in the same situation as well."

(0) 讚！ | kitty123

20240109 Submitted
20240110 with editor
20240112 under review
20240206 Major Revision
20240224 Submit revised manuscript
20240225 with editor
20240228 under review
20240312 Required Reviews Completed
20230318 Accept

(1) 讚！ | Pu

Direct hire? A little too high level

(0) 讚！ | 不懂潮流的猪

Actually, there is nothing to regret about being demoted to Zone 2. More than half of the articles in Scripta are now about high-entropy alloy hydrometallurgy, and those who know, know

(16) 讚！ | hudechun

Chinese Academy of Sciences, you're amazing!

(4) 讚！ | 科研小菜鸡儿

2023-11-04 Submitted to journal
2023-11-06 With editor
2023-11-26 Under review
2023-12-03 Accept

(2) 讚！ | Gaion

10.12 submitted to journal
10.16 with editor
10.20 under review

(0) 讚！ | ggobone

4.16 submitted to journal
4.27 reject Editor's feedback lacks novelty
7.18 After major revisions and successful rebuttal with the editor, resubmitted
7.20 with editor
7.29 under review
8.22 major revision with three reviewers
9.9 revised
9.10 with editor
9.16 under review
10.12 accept

(1) 讚！ | 笨小孩123

Please translate the following passage into English and Japanese, with headings "English Translation:" and "Japanese Translation:"

(0) 讚！ | 潇洒哥

11. 05 required reviews completed

(0) 讚！ | 潇洒哥

10.7 accept

(0) 讚！ | misshp

He loves winter very much because he can ski, make snowmen, and drink hot cocoa by the fireplace. However, he also hates winter because the weather is cold and the roads are slippery. Overall, he prefers spring and summer

(0) 讚！ | 潇洒哥

8.31 under review
9.10 major revision

(0) 讚！ | misshp

8.30 submitted to journal
9.01 with editor
9.06 under review

(20) 讚！ | 潇洒哥

Has your current status changed, and how long has it been in the submit to journal status?

(0) 讚！ | mong

Feels a lot slower than other journals

(0) 讚！ | mong

8.26 submitted

(0) 讚！ | mislsyou

8.14 submit to journal
8.17 submit to journal
Why is it not moving?

(0) 讚！ | Augus灬

Acta ignores the impact factor, while ACTA stands strong. If someone in China has published in Acta, they will definitely recognize its dominant position. All the top experts in the metallurgy field acknowledge it, so what does a newcomer count for?! Only those who haven't published in Acta would be in this dilemma! I submitted a paper to Acta and it got rejected, but when I submitted it to JMST without any revisions, it was accepted and even became a cover paper. Later, it became a hot topic and was recognized as an excellent journal paper!

(0) 讚！ | 元素周期表

It was quite surprising that Rodney wasn't assigned. I have to admit that he is indeed efficient, usually delivering results within a week. However, Rohrer is also a big name in my field. In conclusion, I would be satisfied as long as it gets reviewed after the new issue of Materialia is released.

(0) 讚！ | OneRzzZ

Modify for two months, add a large amount of content, and change it to a long-form submission for Acta Mater. Assigned to processing editor Rohrer G.S. On July 05, the status changed from "with editor" to "under review." Did not receive any email regarding the status change or review track email (which is usually sent by Elsevier journals).

(0) 讚！ | OneRzzZ

First, attach the status of the manuscript as follows:
2023.03.22 Submitted to Journal
2023.03.22 With editor
2023.03.24 Under review
2023.05.03 Required Reviews Completed (I guess it was sent to three reviewers)
2023.05.10 Major revision (Only received feedback from two reviewers, waited for a week)
2023.05.20 With editor
2023.05.22 Under review
2023.06.01 Required Reviews Completed
2023.06.01 Accepted

This is my first submission to Scripta Materialia and also my first time writing a letter format article. I am very happy that it was accepted right away. I would like to thank Editor Prof. David Rodney for handling the manuscript without any delay and with high efficiency. The two reviewers did not raise any issues with the content of the article, but mainly asked other questions they were concerned about. It is important to take the reviewers' comments seriously and respond to each question sincerely and earnestly. I hope everyone starts the year off well. Let's keep up the good work!

(3) 讚！ | 台湾岛客

How long does it usually take for delivery to Professor Kim's hands to determine whether it is under review or rejected? It has been almost 10 days for mine.

(0) 讚！ | monster ~