GREEN CHEMISTRY

In English, the text translates to:

"Total is equivalent to submitting twice,
09-Jun-2021: Submission
~23-Jun-2021: Initial review takes about two weeks (did not pay attention to the date), then assigned to an editor
24-Jun-2021: Some errors in the crystal need to be explained, replied on the same day and sent for review
20-Jul-2021: Reject & Resubmit: Three reviewers (the third one should be an arbitrator) - the first one suggested transferring to a more suitable journal with a friendly attitude, provided some practical modification suggestions (replied with a long paragraph to explain why we are suitable for this journal); the second one suggested major revisions; the third one suggested minor revisions;
24-Aug-2021: Resubmitted after modifications
~4-Sep-2021: Waited for initial review again for more than ten days, sent to the editor (same as before), and sent for review (same first and second reviewers)
20-Sep-2021: Received reviewer comments, the editor suggested minor revisions - the first reviewer had no major issues, just mentioned that the language expression in the new discussion needs to be optimized (similar to the first time), the second reviewer mentioned a small paragraph about EPR and other experiments, but ultimately suggested acceptance as long as a little data is added to a table in the article (not an EPR experiment, just simple catalytic data)
27-Sep-2021: Submitted revised comments
29-Sep-2021: Accept"

6.22 submit
7.28 major revision
8.6 revision submitted to journal
8.23 accept

Between the submission and receiving the reviewer comments, the status changed several times from "with editor" to "in peer review". Initially, it was thought that there were multiple reviewers, but it turned out there were only two reviewers. The field is quite niche, so it is possible that one of the reviewers declined to review the manuscript.

One of the reviewers could tell that they are not from the same field. They acknowledged the material's performance but had some doubts about the experimental process. They asked a question about the experimental steps and provided suggestions for improving the writing. They recommended minor revisions.

The other reviewer is likely from the same field. They praised the novelty of the research but raised some questions about the mechanisms. They suggested making the interpretation of certain characterization results clearer and recommended major revisions.

Overall, the process went smoothly with relatively few reviewers and no requirement for additional experiments.

I wish everyone success in their manuscript submissions as well.