Small Methods

10.22 submitted
11.22 rejected - One reviewer rejected the submission, while another reviewer suggested making revisions and resubmitting (with 14 questions for modification). A third reviewer posed 6 questions but considered the paper acceptable, recommending revisions before resubmission (major revisions).
12.12 re-submitted - Conducted additional experiments, made modifications, and answered questions, taking 20 days. The response reached a word count of 6000 words. Despite the reviewers' sharp questions, they were indeed pinpointing crucial aspects and showed expertise.
12.29 accepted.
Overall, the review process was fast. The paper submitted was not a review article but a research article. The reviewers were professional and their questions were on point. It is important to be willing to invest time in making revisions based on the reviewers' feedback. Best wishes to everyone for speedy acceptance of their submissions.

2022.08.03 submitted (Transfer from AEM)
2022.08.05 with editor
2022.08.06 under review
2022.08.26 major revision (三修一拒)
2022.09.12 revised manuscript submitted
2022.09.12 under review
2022.09.28 required review completed (Note: This status cannot be seen in the submission system, but the editor sent me an email expressing concerns and mentioned this status. It is possible that only the editor's internal system displays this status)
2022.10.02 minor revision (Three accepted, one still rejected. The editor mentioned in the email that a final decision will be made after receiving the revised manuscript)
2022.10.03 revised manuscript submitted
2022.10.05 under review (Note: This time, the under review status should not have been sent to the reviewers who rejected the manuscript. It should be reviewed internally by the editor's office)
2022.10.08 accept