2025-12-04 submitted
2026-01-19 Reject & Resubmit
2026-01-27 Resubmitted
2026-02-10 Accept

After a minor revision and resubmission, the paper was rejected and resubmitted with positive feedback, but it was mentioned that the new concept was not prominent enough. Some key experiments were requested to be added. Therefore, it is important to write the new concept well, as it could easily be rejected otherwise. Finally, hoping for the continuous improvement of MH.

(0) 讚！ | SKYER

Date    Event    Status
2024-11-22    First submission    
2025-02-03    Reject & Resubmit
2025-07-25    Resubmission
2025-10-30    Major Revision
2025-12-05    R1
2026-01-02    Major Revision
2026-01-14    R2
2026-01-28    Accept

Honestly, I don't feel like my direction is that off... But it's clear that it takes a long time for the editor to find reviewers, and most of the time is spent jumping between peer review and with editor.
The conclusion is not to go against the reviewers... Whatever they say is what it is, and if there are fundamental issues, it's better to delete them...
Anyway, it's finally accepted, although I still have some doubts about the reviewer's research methods, but I have to say his theoretical foundation is very solid and has greatly helped me improve. The journal's quality is still good.

(0) 讚！ | pxlz

Submission on October 19, 2025, approximately three to four days later sent for review. 
Received reviews on November 14, from two reviewers. One provided mostly positive feedback with some questions and suggested improvements, resulting in a clearer direction for the article after revisions. The other reviewer rejected the submission for resubmission, citing significant differences in the field and questioning the basic materials in the article, with most issues related to material preparation. 
Received a reminder email from the editorial office two weeks after receiving the feedback on November 30. 
Returned revised manuscript on December 5. 
Accepted on January 6. 

A few days after the first round of revisions on December 5, the status changed to "with editor" and "Under review" simultaneously, continuing until acceptance. Initially, there was concern that the reviewer who rejected the resubmission would decline a second review, prompting the editor to seek a third reviewer. However, the article was eventually accepted, leading to two possible scenarios: 1. The editor forgot to remove the "with editor" status. 2. One reviewer promptly responded to the editor, but due to the Christmas and New Year holidays, the editor and the two reviewers were not all available, resulting in both statuses coexisting for a while. 

Overall, the review process was relatively quick, and communication went smoothly. However, the impact factor has been declining over the past two years, so the editorial team is making efforts to improve it.

(0) 讚！ | ttzhs

Received on December 9th, very fortunate to have this job, thank you to the editors and reviewers. Wishing materials horizons continued success.

(0) 讚！ | greedyboy

Submission on October 3rd, review on October 9th, major revision on October 31st, and the two reviewers seem relatively friendly. Returned for revision on November 22nd, still no results yet, hoping for good luck. Also, I wanted to ask everyone, is it true that you cannot see the status of a revised review in the manuscript tracking system?

(0) 讚！ | greedyboy

Top materials science journals do not accept refutations.

(1) 讚！ | F.G

The two rounds of review took a total of 3 months to complete. The first round of editing took 9 days to decide on submission, and then approximately 14 days to receive feedback. The second round of editing took 5 days to submit for review, and then approximately 30 days to receive feedback and accept.

(0) 讚！ | yslsx

2025.7.20 submitted
2025.7.25 with editor/in peer review
2025.8.21 Major revision
2025.8.31 resubmitted
2025.9.1 in peer review
2025.9.10 accept
The processing speed of the editor is fast, but the peer review process takes longer.

(1) 讚！ | accept lucky

Invitation for submission of review article
4.1 submitted
5.12 minor + major = major revision
5.30 resubmitted
6.6 accept
Latest if=10.7 Oh, MH is declining more and more.

(0) 讚！ | advanced soft materials

Hello, may I ask if there is a proofread available?

(0) 讚！ | NLyun

Hello, I would like to ask if there is a proofreading service available.

(0) 讚！ | NLyun

1.23 submission
1.28 In peer review
2.8 Major revision
2.15 Revision submitted
3.5 Acceptance

(0) 讚！ | 一叶知秋

February 20, 2025.

(0) 讚！ | 皮皮狗

18-Feb-2025 提交
18-Feb-2025 初步评估

(0) 讚！ | 皮皮狗

25.2.10 提交
25.2.12 同行评审中
25.2.17 与编辑者

(0) 讚！ | bluesyu

Submitted on 20250110
In peer review on 20250115

(0) 讚！ | wood adhesive

A bumpy road, in the field of lithium batteries, was reviewed by senior colleagues who thought it was at a similar level to AEM. Unexpectedly, the journey went from early summer to harsh winter. AEM, not submitted yet; AFM, rejected; ACS Nano, in the hands of the editor for a month, deemed too narrow in scope for rejection; Materials Today, the editor found the work interesting but not widely applicable, rejected, could be resubmitted to ESM but decided against it; rejected by CM; nano energy, too many submissions, rejected. Trying the RSC family, submitted to MH on 2024.10.24. On 10.26 with editor, in their hands for over ten days, thought it might be another rejection; under review on 11.5; revise on 12.7, with two reviewers, minor revisions, both gave positive feedback, one clearly with a background in chemistry, asked many questions about organic chemistry mechanisms; revision submitted on 12.17; accepted on 12.24. From an unknown research group, it was not easy. Thanks to the reviewers and editor. I remember when the editors of MH and Chemical Science under RSC came to promote during my visit to Harbin Institute of Technology, at that time MH was on par with AM, the latter being on par with jacs and angew. Sigh, nowadays... Nevertheless, MH is still a good journal in my heart. I sincerely hope that RSC can operate well and that Materials Horizons will soon return to glory.

(0) 讚！ | 不二周助大哥

2024.8.27 submitted
2024.10.2   major revision+ major revision =major revision
2024.10.16 revision submitted
2024.10.28 accept
2024.10.30 proof

2024.8.27 submitted
2024.10.2 major revision + major revision = major revision
2024.10.16 revision submitted
2024.10.28 accept
2024.10.30 proof

(1) 讚！ | xi99

Congratulations! Mine was also accepted on October 28th.

(0) 讚！ | xi99

2024.8.23 submitted
2024.9.18 two minor revisions + 1 reject and resubmit = major revision
2024.10.19 revision submitted
2024.10.29 accept

(0) 讚！ | mlsczs

The main thing to look at is the editor. My acceptance email was only sent after both reviewers replied. For another article in our group, the revised version was sent back for acceptance 6 days after one reviewer returned their comments, and the editor handled it. You should wait, as it seems that not all reviewers have replied yet.

(1) 讚！ | 月亮987

October 28, 2024 Accept

(0) 讚！ | 月亮987

Is there any news on the second trial now? It's been two weeks for mine.

(0) 讚！ | xi99

September 2, 2024 - Submitted
September 9, 2024 - With editor
September 10, 2024 - In peer review
September 13, 2024 - With editor
September 18, 2024 - In peer review
September 25, 2024 - One minor revision + one minor revision = major revision
October 3, 2024 - Resubmitted

It has been twenty days since the second review today, and there is still no news.

(0) 讚！ | 月亮987

The initial will be with the editor one week later, and then it will be sent for review, approximately 10-14 days.

(0) 讚！ | xi99