APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING

5.17 Submission;
5.20 External review;
6.15 External review comments received, 4 reviewers, 3 major revisions, 1 rejection, editor suggested major revisions;
6.30 Revised manuscript submitted;
7.3 External review;
8.2 External review comments received, first two experts agreed to accept, third expert still suggested major revisions, fourth expert still rejected, raised concerns about the structure I proposed, editor suggested major revisions again;
8.20 Revised manuscript submitted, providing specific details of the structure to the fourth expert;
8.21 Discussion with editor;
9.10 External review, followed up once, editor replied considering whether external review is necessary;
10.6 External review comments returned, still suggested major revisions, fourth expert agreed, but it seems the third expert never received the modification instructions, raised some repetitive questions, still need to explain each point;
10.18 Revised manuscript submitted, included the modification instructions from the first two times, an editor sent an email reminder to send the modification instructions to the third expert;
10.21 External review;
11.10 External review comments returned, minor revisions, the third expert still raised some minor issues;
11.15 Revised manuscript submitted;
11.17 Accepted.
After 6 months, 3 major revisions, and 1 minor revision, finally got accepted. It was a nerve-wracking journey for my first SCI paper. Good revisions can still have a high chance of success, and I am grateful to the editor for giving me the opportunity.

22.10.20 Submitted to Journal
22.10.23 With Editor
22.11.8 Under Review
23.2.4 Major revise
23.2.24 Revision Submitted to Journal
23.3.1 Under Review
23.3.27 Required Reviews Complete
23.4.11 Decision in process
23.4.13 Accept

The editor's decision greatly determines the speed of the entire process. A colleague who submitted their paper to ATE two months later than me was accepted on the same day as me, but their processing time in WE, RRC, and DIP was much shorter than mine. The handling speed of the Editor-in-Chief, Christos Markides, is relatively slow.

Based on experience, papers that enter the editing stage at the beginning of the month are usually processed faster than those that enter at the end of the month, and each stage generally does not exceed 21 days. If there has been no progress for a long time, it is polite to send an email to inquire about the status (preferably indicating that it is not a reminder for the paper). I couldn't bear the wait after 14 days in RRC, so I gently reminded them.

There were two reviewers for the first review. Reviewer 1 rejected the paper, while Reviewer 2 accepted it directly, but required major revisions. I carefully and positively answered all the questions and pointed out any misunderstandings by the reviewers. The second review did not have any comments and the paper was accepted, although the wait was agonizing.