JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC MATERIALS

It took 5 months, with one reviewer from Korea, one from India, and one from an unknown location. The Korean and Indian reviewers were mainly concerned with the organization of their articles. The Indian reviewer was the most exaggerated, providing 9 suggestions that were not particularly deep or difficult, mainly adding some basic information and improving the introduction. After all, the initial submission was a letter, and many things should not have been included. The other reviewer had strict requirements and insisted on clearly labeling a certain XPS peak. I think he must have known what the peak was, as he had a lot of experience in this field. At that time, I speculated that he might be involved in adsorption-related research. In the end, I forced myself to read a lot of material and finally understood it. However, because there were no other corresponding characterization methods and no similar analysis experience, I felt uncertain. The initial submission was a letter, but due to the many comments from the reviewers, it turned into an article. Due to various reasons, I had to personally write and change the order of the authors. The journal has a low impact factor and the reviewers' opinions were mixed, but the editorial handling speed was acceptable. It took 5 months to complete this paper, and looking back, I realized that I made things more difficult for myself. The important thing is that the journal did not reject it and accepted the paper. This paper is truly a masterpiece, and I have to praise myself for being talented. Of course, the most important thing is to be grateful for the journal's acceptance.

Posted on August 21st, under review on September 16th, the dates remained unchanged during this period. On November 17th, I wrote a letter to the editor to inquire about the status of the review. On November 18th, it showed that the review was completed, and on November 19th, in the early morning, it was rejected. After the rejection, they mentioned that if the article is significantly revised according to the reviewers' comments, it can be resubmitted. However, there were only four comments from the reviewers, and none of them were major issues or provided any guidance. I am truly speechless about this journal and its editor. If they wanted to reject it, they should have just done it instead of dragging it for a whole three months!!

I hope my submission experience can provide reference for colleagues in the same field. Be cautious when submitting to this journal!!!