JOURNAL OF FLUIDS AND STRUCTURES

14-07-2021 Submitted initial draft
10-09-2021 Received reviewer comments
30-09-2021 Submitted revisions
12-11-2021 Accepted
11-01-2022 Available online

The article I submitted is fundamentally a mathematical analysis article on the topic of structural and wave coupling, focusing on the application of offshore photovoltaics. The editor-in-chief clearly has an interest in the topic of fluid-structure coupling, but it is uncertain whether they are interested in analytical analysis or the application of offshore photovoltaics. The next day, it was sent for external review.

The two reviewers were selected from the three reviewers I recommended, which is relatively uncommon. This may be because the editor-in-chief knows and trusts my advisor. After considering the recommendations of the two reviewers, the editor-in-chief provided minor revisions. One reviewer is an expert in academia and provided targeted suggestions for minor revisions. The other reviewer is a former academic turned technology entrepreneur and provided major revisions. Their opinions were basically contradictory. After adding a lot of background information on offshore photovoltaic products and emphasizing the introduction of their company's products, it was accepted.

I have to complain about the typing team (publisher) of this journal! After we submitted the revised manuscript's LaTeX source, they sent us several emails saying that the manuscript and code were not consistent. After checking, it turned out that they themselves couldn't distinguish between the old version and the revised version. It made my advisor use words starting with "F" to curse the typing team in India. Originally, it could have been available online before the new year, but it was delayed until January 11th.

Submitted for 6 months, initially tried because I had never submitted to this journal before. Received feedback after 6 months, rejected. Opened it and saw three reviewers. All of their names start with "F". They really act like XX. Where did they conduct the model test? They should have marked "carry out model test". They provided a series of irrelevant comments that I can tolerate. But the key feedback was really from someone who knows nothing, absolutely nothing. It feels like you wrote a dish of beef rice, and they insisted that the pork in it is not tasty. Very clueless. This is my first time submitting to this journal, and not only is the speed extremely slow, but the reviewers are also highly unprofessional. No wonder the impact factor has been declining significantly in recent years. Everyone can see it clearly.