NEUROCOMPUTING

Blocked. First submission, one reminder for review, email informed that one reviewer did not submit comments. Within two days, it was rejected. The first reviewer was responsible and provided great help in revising the manuscript. The second reviewer, who delayed and provided comments at the end, probably received a reminder from the editor before giving some perfunctory comments. Every comment was perfunctory and lacked specificity, just for the sake of rejection. Then the editor's rejection reason was roughly: we have many manuscripts and don't need yours.

I was not satisfied because the comments from the first reviewer were not difficult to address, not a major issue. The second reviewer was unprofessional and perfunctory. So, I made the revisions and replied, resubmitted, but it was rejected again within two days. The reason for rejection was that the editor believed there were no major changes. Haha, there weren't many areas that needed modification in the suggestions provided, and I answered and made revisions to each comment seriously, including the perfunctory reviewer's comments. Maybe they just have a lot of manuscripts and don't need mine. Both the reviewers and the editor are disappointing. I don't believe the editor couldn't see through the whole process of the second reviewer's empty words and perfunctory attitude.

2021.08.29 required reviews completed
2021.09.03 decision in process
2021.09.07 accepted
Also, I would like to share some submission experiences this time, hoping to be helpful to others.
First, the journal sent a total of 10 review invitations to me for the first round of review. Therefore, any changes in the status "Under review" could be either due to reviewers declining the invitation or the previous reviewers not responding, resulting in the editor logging into the system to send invitations to new reviewers. But overall, changes in the status "Under review" indicate that the manuscript is being processed.
Second, for the second round of review, an additional reviewer was added, who provided positive feedback and suggested conducting additional experiments but without making it mandatory. The other two reviewers who provided comments in the first round had already agreed to accept the manuscript, so the editor directly accepted it in the end. It seems that this journal tends to add reviewers for the second and third rounds of review. In my case, even after attempting to invite 10 reviewers, I still tried to invite new reviewers for the second round. Additionally, I know of many other submission cases where additional reviewers were added.