Energy

Submission details: Four reviewers were recommended when submitting, all of whom are experts in the field. Three accepted the review and one declined. The first reviewer suggested significant language revisions, while the second praised the article from start to finish and provided a few minor suggestions. The third reviewer found the article meaningful and suggested modifying the discussion. The editor provided six formatting suggestions. During the second review, three reviewers had no comments, while the editor provided three formatting suggestions. One suggestion was to separate the references, which was not mandatory but strongly emphasized. This was not given much attention during the first review (not sure if anyone else encountered this issue). There was a delay of nearly a month due to personal matters, but after making the necessary revisions, the article was accepted. The process was slow, but overall good. Personal acknowledgments to Editor Neven Duić.

Personal reflections: It was not easy to work in the direction that I am interested in. The title, methodology, data, manuscript, and submission were all completed by myself. It took a total of 2 years (with a delay of 6-7 months due to assisting the supervisor, but not completely shelved). I targeted ENERGY when structuring the article, and it was accepted with the first submission. This is the third SCI article I have obtained this academic year, with each one of better quality than the last. Currently, I have two more articles in progress, one is nearly completed, and the other already has complete data, both targeting even better journals. After years of painful accumulation, there will eventually be rewards. I wish everyone success in achieving their target journals. The above is my personal experience, for reference only. Apologies for the lengthy text.

2020.08.13 with editor
2020.08.25 under review
2020.10.20 revise
2020.11.17 submission
2020.01.11 accept

The status "with editor" lasted for about two weeks, and then it was sent for external review. A total of three reviewers were invited. The first reviewer found the research interesting and innovative, and raised a lot of relevant questions. They suggested minor revisions before acceptance. The second reviewer did not believe that our topic fit the scope of ENERGY journal and recommended that we submit to a related specialized journal. The third reviewer acknowledged the research's innovativeness and significant practical value in engineering, and suggested minor revisions before acceptance. Considering the opinions of all three reviewers, the editor requested major revisions. It took about a month to complete the revisions and resubmit. The review process took one and a half months, and the paper was ultimately accepted.

Overall, ENERGY journal is a highly reputable publication in the field of energy. The reviewers' questions were insightful and targeted the key points. In today's interdisciplinary environment, ENERGY journal still accepts topics from the traditional energy field. This is a great encouragement and boosts my confidence. I believe this may also be a reason for the continuous increase in ENERGY's impact factor. I wish everyone success in their research endeavors.