DISPLAYS

After the major renovation, the hiring process was quick, and the editing submission was fast. However, the speed at which the reviewers processed the manuscripts was a bit random. The first reviewer accepted and processed the manuscript quickly and provided many suggestions. The second reviewer was much slower. Although there were not many suggestions, if they had completed the review a week earlier, I would not have to wait for the second batch of degree assessments. However, the speed was still fast.

The revision suggestions were all very fair and valuable. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, if I earnestly address the revisions that can be made and provide clear reasons for experiments that cannot be completed in the short term, generally there should not be any issues.

The editing was fast, but it took a long time to find the second reviewer. The key is that this journal has articles in my field, so I specifically submitted to it. It took seven months to find the second reviewer, and during this time, my second article was already accepted. The first reviewer's comments were positive, fair, and detailed. The second reviewer did not understand my direction well and requested additional data sets and experiments. Just by reading the comments, it seems that a major revision could be done, but it was rejected directly. I do not recommend submitting hastily, as it is too slow. If you insist on submitting, I suggest not rushing and maintaining a calm attitude. I have sent many reminders, but do not learn from my experience.