POLYMER

First time submitting to this journal, when submitting, it was about the psychology of being a cannon fodder. If it didn't feel right, I planned to revise and resubmit. The manuscript had gone through multiple rounds of revisions before submission, even the framework had been rewritten several times. I felt like I had no temper left after all the revisions. So I decided to submit it and accumulate some experience. The result was quite smooth, and I am very grateful for the recognition from the editor and the reviewer. The fact proves that there will be rewards for efforts, and one must believe in oneself and continue to work hard!
Nov. 25 submitted
Nov. 26 edited
Nov. 29 reviewed
Dec. 7 required reviews completed
Dec. 16 reviewed
Dec. 21 major revision
Jan. 8 resubmitted after modification
Jan. 10 accepted
The opinions of the two reviewers were very serious, and their suggestions were very reasonable and detailed. I responded very cautiously to the comments of the second reviewer, consulted many references, because I felt that the modification in one place was different from the reviewer's opinion. After consulting many references, I explained the reasons and also clarified my own issues in expression. I thought I would have to go through a second round of revisions, but unexpectedly it was accepted directly. I am very grateful for Editor Han's recognition.
Through this submission experience, I have learned two things. First, don't be afraid of revisions when submitting, multiple revisions will continuously improve the ideas and quality of the article. Second, if there are differences with the reviewer's opinions, multiple verifications can be conducted to explain the differences. Because academic research itself is a process of continuous discussion.

Overall, it is quite good, a well-established journal in the field of polymers.
During the article submission process, there were some small episodes (during which a non-expert reviewer asked a lot of nonsensical non-expert questions and gave negative comments, which probably affected the editor's judgment, leading to rejection). I angrily wrote a lengthy appeal letter, which probably impressed the editor and persuaded them to allow me to resubmit the article. But it was not a big deal.
The resubmission process went relatively smoothly. The article was returned for major revisions after one month, and all three reviewers provided positive feedback. One of them strongly recommended publication and raised insightful and constructive questions. There were about 6 or 7 questions in total, and I diligently replied to each one in over 20 pages. It was a sincere and thorough response. The publication process took about 1 and a half months, with the following timeline for reference:
Received: December 1, 2022
Major Revised: January 15, 2023
Accepted: January 16, 2023
Available online: January 17, 2023.