EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS

Submitted by the end of September 2020
Assigned to an editor by the end of October 2020
Received first-round reviewer comments by the end of October 2021. There were three reviewers, and Reviewers #1 and #3 provided feedback. Reviewer #2 likely forgot to review. Reviewer #1 criticized the entire manuscript and raised challenging questions, but thankfully did not recommend rejection and acknowledged the research's value. Reviewer #3 had a positive opinion on the research and its content, suggesting additional evaluation methods and improvements for better understanding. The time given for revisions in the first round was a surprising 27 days, leaving everyone confused as it seemed impossible to address all the comments in such a short period. We worked relentlessly to conduct additional experiments and include comparative methods, finally submitting the revised manuscript on the last day of the deadline. We also sent a response letter to the reviewers, which was almost as long as the paper itself (given the extremely short revision time provided).
The second-round review ended on December 31, 2021, with no further comments. However, the editor did not accept the paper and requested modifications to the highlights, as each highlight exceeded the length limit (surprisingly, it was 85 characters including punctuation and spaces, not 85 words). We completed the modifications and returned them on January 3, 2022.
Final acceptance notification received on January 16, 2022.
Overall, the outcome is positive, but the review process was too slow. If in a hurry, one must carefully consider submitting a paper.

On August 12, 2022, the initial draft was submitted to the system and quickly entered the "under review" status. On the tracking page for the review process, it was observed that 2+ reviewers were invited. Around October 1, 2022, responses were received from two reviewers, and the status changed to "RRC" (Reviewer Recommendation Complete). After a week, the Associate Editor (AE) adjusted the status back to "under review" to wait for other reviewers. The third reviewer returned the results in less than a week, and on October 23, 2022, the paper officially entered the "DIP" (Decision in Process) status. This status lasted for more than 100 days, causing frustration. During this period, every two weeks or so, emails were sent to the AE through the EM system and reminders were also made through the publisher's customer service, but it was futile and the process dragged on for more than 100 days. On January 29, 2023, in the early morning, a decision letter was received, indicating a minor revision. The feedback included opinions from only two reviewers, totaling eight points, with half of them related to spelling errors and formatting issues. However, one or two additional experiments were requested to address remaining issues. It took ten days to complete the experiments, and on February 9, 2023, the revised manuscript was submitted through the system. The next day, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) sent a letter stating that the revised manuscript has been handed over to the responsible AE for further processing, and currently, it is still in the "with editor" status.