ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA

The direction is to do coatings, only a part of the corrosion evaluation content, from ASS, SCT, all the way to submit, originally did not expect to be accepted by EA, thought it would be another long submission process, but accidentally got accepted. Sharing the submission timeline.
12.9 - with editor
12.15 - under review
There were initially three reviewers, probably two at first, the first one accepted it directly, the second one rejected it due to differences in opinions, resulting in arbitration, the third reviewer didn't mention major or minor revisions, but provided 10 questions.
1.17 - revise, a total of 24 questions, including the opinions of the rejecting reviewer.
Fortunately, there were no additional experimental requirements, but the rejecting reviewer did have a deep knowledge in electrochemistry and raised many challenging questions that were difficult to answer. With the holiday approaching, I worked hard to respond.
1.26 - responded to reviewer's comments, under review
2.8 - received comments back, the rejecting reviewer's questions changed from rejection to 4, but they were still challenging. It took 3 days to respond.
2.11 - submitted
2.12 - accepted!
I spent 5 minutes writing this paragraph to tell everyone not to rush when submitting manuscripts. Often, the more anxious you are, the less likely you are to succeed. I will be facing my doctoral graduation next year, and I'm actually quite anxious inside, but I must approach it with a calm mindset. Keep going and strive, my fellow researchers!

Submitted in early November.
Returned for revision on December 7th. All three reviewers suggested major revisions. The first submission had incomplete data and poorly drawn figures, but perhaps the highlights of the article were good enough that the reviewers did not reject it. The editor may have felt that there was not enough time and rejected it, but the rejection letter emphasized the need to resubmit with revisions and indicated the number of the first draft.

Resubmitted on January 18th.
Accepted on March 20th, after showing it to the original reviewers who all stated that it was fine and greatly improved. No further modifications were made.

It is evident that the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry focuses more on the highlights of the article rather than the aesthetics of the figures, unlike some other journals. Articles with innovative and eye-catching points should be submitted here. There is no need to follow the trend of creating flashy and extravagant figures, constantly thinking about the colors and aspect ratios of the figures rather than focusing on the data itself. This is simply a misguided and unproductive practice.