Journal of Computational Design and Engineering

Starting from the time it was delivered to the editorial department, it took one month to complete the external review and receive suggestions. There were 2 rejections and 1 major revision, and finally, the editor rejected it. The efficiency of the journal can be considered quite high.
There were three reviewers, and each reviewer gave around 10 suggestions. As someone working on algorithms, I found that the reviewers had high expectations for the algorithm and all the questions raised were focused on the method, considering it not innovative enough without considering other aspects.
I heard others saying that this journal was low-quality, so I decided to submit to it. However, after submitting, I realized that this journal is not low-quality at all. They did not mention many issues with the manuscript itself, but they heavily criticized my method, claiming it lacked innovation. So, if your method is more innovative, it should be easier to publish in this journal.

I was invited to review and found that the journal is a non-preemptive Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) second-tier journal, so I took a closer look at its work.

During the first review, I felt that many details in the article were not clearly explained, so I recommended rejection. The editor suggested major revisions.

During the second review, the author added many details. However, I discovered two major flaws in his improved algorithm and questioned the results of his experimental comparison. I believed that it was unlikely to be better than the classic algorithm he compared it with, so I recommended rejection again. The editor suggested minor revisions.

In a way, the review criteria may only be at the level of a fourth-tier journal. Those who have requirements for CAS second-tier journals may find it unsatisfactory.