Optica

6.22, submission, the editor reviewed it quickly.
6.29, sent for peer review. We invited 6 reviewers, 3 agreed, and 3 were unavailable. Originally, the review period was one month. One person delayed it for another month.
8.30, received review comments. Two were positive, one was very negative.
One suggested direct publication, while another suggested modifying some descriptions regarding novelty. However, the third reviewer was extremely negative, considering our article worthless and proposing alternative methods, which he believed to be correct, as well as suggesting additional experiments (which we had actually conducted but he overlooked). The editor gave us two weeks.
Due to the excessively negative feedback from the third reviewer, we directly responded. We explained in detail that the methods he suggested were fundamentally impractical and pointed out that the experiments he requested had already been included in the supplemental materials.
9.13, resubmitted the modified version. In reality, we only made a few word changes and added a few citations.
9.14, sent back to the reviewers, waited for another two weeks.
9.30, received feedback. Two reviewers accepted it directly, but the third still had concerns. One of the positive reviewers even advocated for us in their comments. Finally, the editor provided a suggestion, asking us to conduct two additional experiments and gave us one week. We performed the experiments as suggested by the editor and sent it back within one week.
10.7, resubmitted again, and it was immediately accepted.
10.13, notified that it enters the subsequent production process.

Didn't expect it to be accepted, and encountered a relatively nice editor. The specific submission process:
6.1 Submitted.
6.8 Showed that the editor sent it for review, but couldn't find a reviewer. Finally, found 8 reviewers, but only 2 were willing to review.
8.1 Received a major revision decision. Both reviewers' comments were troublesome, requiring additional data from theory, simulation, and experiments. Basically had to redo everything, took two whole months to revise.
10.1 Finished the revision and submitted a response to the reviewer's suggestions.
10.22 Received the acceptance decision.
Some experiences:
1. It seems that the editor saw a completely different version of our revision and didn't send it to the two reviewers. Otherwise, we should have received feedback from them.
2. Personally, I feel that Optica doesn't require as much innovation, but demands a huge amount of data. It's better to supplement all possible data before submission, which increases the chances of being reviewed and accepted.
3. The review process is quite long, taking a total of 6 and a half months (mainly due to finding reviewers and revising the article). If the editor sends it for review quickly, the chances of acceptance are usually high.
4. I don't know the submission order of others. Personally, I think when submitting to Optica, should we try Light first?