Journal of Materials Research and Technology-JMR&T

February 2nd - Submitted
February 3rd - Under review
February 20th - Revision
March 11th - Submitted
March 14th - Accepted
The first submission was for SCI. The first time I submitted to MSEA, the editor gave me major revisions. The reviewer asked me to add a performance test aspect, but we felt that this performance was not relevant to the research content corresponding to our title. It was not what we wanted to explore, so we did not make this modification. We replied that we would explore it later. In the end, the reviewer seemed very angry and said that the content he proposed should be adopted, but we did not understand the importance of learning with humility, so it was rejected. It feels bad because that experiment was not difficult. The first submission ended up like this, which is a pity. I also don't understand the rules of submitting papers very well. Actually, the research is quite novel. Later, the senior boss asked me to submit to JMRT for review, and the response came back quickly in about ten days. It was a minor revision, with a total of five comments. Some were minor issues, some I had already thought of, and one was due to a misunderstanding by the reviewer. I explained it in detail in my response. The next day after the revision, the editor accepted it, and the speed was indeed fast, almost in February. Thanks to the editor and I wish the journal will continue to improve and accept more high-quality papers.

The manuscript was assigned to the editor of Kind regards. It took 20 days to receive the results of the first review, with three reviewers involved. One rejected it, while two suggested revisions. The first review provided constructive feedback mainly on minor details. After major revisions, the manuscript was sent for a second review to the same two reviewers, and the results were received within 10 days. Both reviewers requested additional tests to be added. After further major revisions, the manuscript was sent for a third review to the same two reviewers, and the results were received within 10 days. The reviewers rejected the manuscript because they believed the testing methods they proposed were not adopted. The whole process was frustrating as the testing methods were routine, and multiple methods could yield the desired results. It is difficult to understand why the reviewers were fixated on the testing methods. It feels like the editor has no decision-making power and is merely playing the role of a robot throughout the entire process!!!