MEASUREMENT

3.30 Submission
5.15 Major revision (six reviewers)
6.28 Major revision (two unsatisfactory comments from one reviewer)
8.10 Major revision (one additional reviewer added)
9.15 Acceptance

This submission and revision experience was truly unforgettable, as it was filled with various setbacks. The first submission was reviewed by six reviewers, among whom two had no suggestions for acceptance, while the other four provided some suggestions that were generally favorable, leading to a major revision requested by the editor. In the second submission, two questions from one reviewer were not passed, resulting in another major revision requested by the editor. Before the third submission, none of the original six reviewers had any further comments and suggested acceptance, making us think that there wouldn't be any issues. However, for unknown reasons, a seventh reviewer was added, whose comments were slightly negative, leading to another major revision. It felt like everything was about to collapse. We diligently worked on the revisions for half a month, making modifications and providing responses (although some suggestions were not modified, we provided sincere explanations, as it seemed that the reviewers did not fully understand certain aspects).

Overall, the speed of this submission process was relatively fast, and we grew a lot through the revision process. We are grateful to the journal and all the reviewers.

I am engaged in mechanical testing methods. Last year, I published two articles on measurement and would like to share the progress of the review process with everyone. I feel that measurement's efficiency is quite high. After submitting, it became "under review" after 3 days. After 14 days, I received major revision comments. I made the revisions myself within 14 days, and then received minor revision comments after another 14 days. I made the revisions on the same day and submitted them, and they were accepted.

Translated text:

I am engaged in mechanical testing methods. Last year, I published two articles on measurement and would like to share the progress of the review process with everyone. I feel that measurement's efficiency is quite high. After submitting, it became "under review" after 3 days. After 14 days, I received major revision comments. I made the revisions myself within 14 days, and then received minor revision comments after another 14 days. I made the revisions on the same day and submitted them, and they were accepted.

The dates provided are as follows:

Article 1:
- Available online: 3 September 2020
- Received: 31 May 2020
- Received in revised form: 22 August 2020
- Accepted: 26 August 2020

Article 2:
- Available online: 10 January 2021
- Received: 26 October 2020
- Received in revised form: 27 December 2020
- Accepted: 4 January 2021