JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR LIQUIDS

Submitted in September of the 22nd year, a reviewer was not found for the previous month. After a month, one reviewer was found and provided comments. The editor continued to search for more reviewers and two accepted. By December of the 22nd year, all three reviewers had completed their reviews, with two accepting and one rejecting. The one who rejected clearly did not understand. The editor then requested major revisions, which were made and resubmitted. However, two out of the three reviewers disappeared, and one accepted the invitation a month later. The editor then invited another new reviewer, and both agreed with no major issues. They only asked for a few figures to be changed to logarithmic coordinates, and the editor requested minor revisions. After the revisions, the fourth reviewer also disappeared. In March, a reminder letter was sent because all three reviewers had agreed and there were no major issues with the article. The author hoped that the editor would make a decision based on the previous reviews and not invite new reviewers. However, the editor invited another reviewer, and now it has been seven months. The editor is M. Bešter-Rogač, and it is unknown if all her reviews are like this, but it feels unfriendly. This journal has been submitted to before when the editor was W. Schröer, and it took 1-3 months. Why does this current editor seem intentionally difficult? Does the editor have to wait for all reviewers to reply? Can't the editor make decisions on their own for minor issues? Why do reviewers keep disappearing after being invited repeatedly? Has anyone else experienced this with this editor? Is it always like this?

Received at Editorial Office 17 Jul 2022
Article revised 20 Nov 2022
Article accepted for publication 22 Nov 2022
Submitted for review two to three days after submission, the first review took one month with two reviewers. Major revisions were requested, and two months were given for the revisions.
On October 13, 2022, the article was sent back for revisions and reviewed again within two to three days. The second review took over a month. Upon tracking the status of the review, it was found that only one person agreed to review it again. On November 13, 2022, I sent a reminder for the review, and the editor replied that the article was still under review, asking for patience.
On November 14, the status changed to the third reviewer conducting the review. On November 20, a response was received stating that the revisions from the first review were accepted and the second review from the third reviewer required minor revisions, along with citing the article and addressing two small issues.
On the morning of the 21st, the revisions were completed and sent back for review. The third reviewer reviewed it again on the afternoon of the 22nd and accepted the revisions by 2:00 PM. Half an hour later, feedback was received, indicating that the review process was complete.
At 6:30 PM on the 22nd, a message confirming acceptance by the journal was received.