MATERIALS AND CORROSION-WERKSTOFFE UND KORROSION

Posted on September 8, 2021, accepted on October 5, 2021. They want me to make revisions before November 4th.
I wrote an analysis of the corrosion situation in natural gas pipelines. I am not a materials expert. I only used a third-party inspection report from my engineering work, along with conducting an experiment soaking in an SRB solution to measure corrosion depth and including a scanning electron microscope photo. I personally think that I wrote the article from an outsider's perspective. I only analyzed the corrosion situation from an engineering standpoint using engineering data, and then conducted a pipeline safety evaluation from a quality engineering perspective.
I feel that as long as the amount of data is appropriate and the logic is rigorous, with mutually validating data or engineering guidance value, it can be accepted. The external expert only emphasized the need to improve the data and clarify any unclear points, and to avoid writing in the tone of an experimental report. There were no difficult opinions mentioned.

An article, which I had originally planned to give up on, had been rejected three times before. I submitted it to this journal and, of course, made extensive revisions based on the comments from the previous rejections. After about 40 days, I received minor revisions. The reviewer provided very constructive comments, which I followed and explained in detail during the revision process. After about 20 days, it was accepted. The current status is "in preparation," and it has been 10 days already. The post-processing time may be slightly longer.