Fuel

Finally, I have been looking forward to this day!
I submitted my first contribution to FUEL, but it was directly rejected by the editor. They suggested that I make revisions before resubmitting, so I made the necessary changes and submitted it again.
For the second submission, it was assigned to Pietro Bartocci, an editor from Italy.
I submitted it on December 28, 2021, and it took about 14 days for the editor to review it.
On February 13, I received the first round of comments from four reviewers, three minor revisions and one major revision.
On March 4, I submitted the revised version (R1), and the editor processed it quickly. After about four days, it was sent for review again. After about 10 days, the review process ended, and it remained in the revision required with the corresponding author (rrc) status.
On April 20, I sent a reminder email to the editor.
On April 23, I received the second round of comments, luckily there were only two minor issues.
On April 26, I submitted the revised version (R2), and it was directly in the "with editor" status. One day later, it changed to "under review".
On May 4, the review process ended, and the status changed to rrc.
On May 7, the date was updated.
On May 8, it was accepted!
Overall, the editor handled the new submission quite quickly. If it wasn't for the delay of 1.5 months in the rrc status, it would have been accepted in 2.5 months. It took a total of 4 months. Thanks to Editor Pietro Bartocci and the Chief Editor. I wish FUEL continued success.

This Italian editor (Pietro Bartocci) could be considered for dismissal. He is seriously ill and needs treatment. Aside from this editor's academic achievements (you can search for his article records, he is no longer in the academic circle), his writing level is very poor, and he is not a professor/researcher but a full-time editor working for Elsevier. This editor has serious character issues.

My student's article, with Editor 2 for 2 months, showed "required review completed" after 2 weeks under review, but it took 5 months to receive the result, which required major revisions and involved 9 reviewers?!

7 minor revisions and 2 major revisions, which is still acceptable. However, the reviewers for the major revisions are clearly incompetent, writing a bunch of nonsense in their evaluations. Fine, I endured it. After making the changes and resubmitting, it showed "required review completed" after two weeks, but four more months have passed and there is still no response.

So I wrote a letter urging them. The Elsevier mechanism only allows me to email their secretary, and each time I receive a mechanical reply, saying that they need to wait for all 9 reviewers to provide their opinions before making a decision. ??? They actually sent the article back to the same 9 reviewers for a second review??

And in the past six months, this Italian editor has invited me to review his manuscripts at least 5 times. Can you believe that he still has the audacity to invite me to review for him??