ISA TRANSACTIONS

Articles related to measuring instruments, submitted on January 15, 2022, accepted on September 3, 2022.
1. The first round of review ended on June 11, 2022:
It should have invited two rounds of reviewers, so the first review took a long time. A total of 6 reviewers were invited, and 5 returned their opinions.
Reviewer 4 believed that the preprint article I submitted was a formal article and had already been published in another journal, so it was rejected without providing other comments.
I appealed to the editor, and the final result of the first review changed to major revisions.
I think the questions raised by Reviewer 1 were particularly good and hit the key points, while the other reviewers were average.
The revised manuscript was returned on June 29, 2022.

2. The second round of review ended on August 5, 2022, minor revisions:
I was always worried that Reviewer 4 would come up with strange new review comments, but he agreed directly, showing some conscience.
Reviewer 1 was satisfied with my response to the first review, with only a very minor issue that needed clarification.
The other reviewers all agreed to publish.
The revised manuscript was returned on August 6, 2022.

3. The third round of review ended on August 20, 2022, minor revisions:
All reviewers agreed to publish.
The editor suggested deleting the references suggested by the reviewers.
Some formatting modifications were provided.
It is required to use iThenticate to check the similarity of the article, with a full-text similarity rate of less than 25% and a single-document similarity rate of less than 2%. The similarity report needs to be directly sent to the editor via email.
The revised manuscript was returned on August 20, 2022.

Posted on November 6, 2021, after two major revisions and one minor revision, accepted on September 9, 2022.

1. The first round of peer review lasted for 4 months, major revision:
The editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and 4 reviewers provided over 20 comments, indicating high requirements for language and innovative ideas.

2. The second round of peer review lasted for 1 month, major revision:
All reviewers from the first round had no comments, and the journal added two new reviewers. One had no comments, while the other requested major revisions with harsh language. In order to meet the demands of this reviewer, extensive adjustments were made to the logic of the entire modeling section.

3. The third round of peer review lasted for 2 weeks, minor revision:
The editor-in-chief requested the removal of certain references and conducted a plagiarism check using the ithenticate English official website. After consulting multiple sources, it was discovered that the ithenticate English official website does not provide invoices and one has to pay $100 out of pocket. It should be noted that there are some differences between the results of plagiarism checks on the ithenticate Chinese website and the English official website, but they are not significant. Everyone can decide for themselves.

4. On September 9th, it was formally accepted:
After the third revision, it took 2 days to receive the acceptance notice, which was a day before the Mid-Autumn Festival.

Wishing everyone smooth manuscript submissions and many papers!